JT
Posts:
1,150
Registered:
4/7/12


Re: Is it me or is it Wolfram?
Posted:
May 12, 2013 4:28 AM


On 10 Maj, 20:04, "Julio Di Egidio" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: > "JT" <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:82f721d1c69147fa8428913e49966f62@m7g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.499999999999999999999999999999... > > > n = 1. > > 0.49999999999999999999999999999999999999999 = (n/21)/n > > >http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%3D%2810000000000000000000000000... > > > 0.49999999999999999999999999999999999999999=(100000000000000000000000000000 000000000000/21)/ > > 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/21)/n, and consider that your k is not fitting > into a float (most probably they are using doubles, i.e. the 64bit 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 stepbystep solution, > but I haven't). > > That is how floating point works: you'd rather ideally use > arbitraryprecision 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.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article2321146/WhatearthHalfcatcapturedGoogleStreetviewphotoshoppedhoaxjustcasethoughtnewspecies.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SkUxknvRlc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndN_5IrPOhc 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 Zoroaster, 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.

