Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Is it me or is it Wolfram?
Replies: 16   Last Post: May 13, 2013 4:51 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 1,040
Registered: 4/7/12
Re: Is it me or is it Wolfram?
Posted: May 12, 2013 4:28 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 10 Maj, 20:04, "Julio Di Egidio" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "JT" <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:82f721d1-c691-47fa-8428-913e49966f62@m7g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

> >http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.499999999999999999999999999999...
> > n = -1.
> > 0.49999999999999999999999999999999999999999 = (n/2-1)/n

> >http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%3D%2810000000000000000000000000...
> > 0.49999999999999999999999999999999999999999=(100000000000000000000000000000 000000000000/2-1)/
> > 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000

> > I do not understand to, can please someone explain why and how wolfram
> > get -1 for the upper calculation, it is obvious using the one below
> > what the solution is?

> > And if there was two solutions should not Wolfram give them both? What
> > is going on here, i am total newb to math calculators so tell me what
> > is going on?

> Take the equation k = (n/2-1)/n, and consider that your k is not fitting
> into a float (most probably they are using doubles, i.e. the 64-bit floats,
> but I haven't checked), so k is (apparently) rounded to 0.5.  Then,
> depending on how you transform the equation and the exact step at which you
> substitute your value for k, you either get -Infinity or -1 (exercise left
> to the reader, or I guess you could just check the step-by-step solution,
> but I haven't).
> That is how floating point works: you'd rather ideally use
> arbitrary-precision rationals, otherwise, as mentioned already in the
> thread, increase the precision of your floating point numbers.  But I do not
> think you can do any of these with Wolfram Alpha.
> Julio

You are a fucking clueless monkey Julio, don't you think that
mathematica can handle a simple division, together with Wofram,
mathematica is one of the most__accurate__ math packages out there on
the market. And they should not be able to handle simple floating
point arithmetic that take 3 days to program. Even for me that do not
even claim to be a competent programmer in any language i would do it
in notime. So that is not why....... instead it is their arithmetic
simply fucked up it, so no it isn't sound. They should build it upon
geometrical principles known since Zohan of Babylon. The ones behind
that programming is fucked up prostitutes to mainstream nillywilly
anal imaginary half cats. This is what i think about them.


Back in the day of Babylon the priest was astronoms, so the whole
geometric priniciples was founded by priests. And the most famous of
them all was Zohan, also known as Zoroaster. The village of Zohan can
still be found in Iran. We often focus upon other traits of
that have become larger then life after his death myths, but during
the time of Babylon he was the greatest astronom, mathematician the
world had seen.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.