Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: No Putnam spoilers please
Posted:
Dec 8, 2012 10:34 PM
|
|
Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes:
> In sci.math message <6wRoX+N1xSwQFw+U@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid
>>, Thu, 6 Dec 2012 23:38:29, Dr J R Stockton <reply1249@merlyn.demon.co.
> uk.invalid> posted:
>
>>In that calculation, longcalc uses only elementary arithmetic, as used
>>to be taught in schools in my day. Your proof, however, is 50%
>>incomprehensible to me. Though it may well be right. Longcalc found an
>>error in *a* printed representation of (3^349-1)/2, which you might have
>>difficulty with. Fx : checks : I think it has found another one.
>
> Can anyone (or more) please provide here the last ten decimal digits (in
> order) of ((3^349)-1)/2, freshly and independently calculated and not
> copied from any other medium, and not using my LongCalc or VastCalc?
'bc' reports:
$ bc <<<"(3^349-1)/2"
16379019558053662392174130154670449583923965684832704024983781709239\
69468635132120415650964922608054197182470755579714456896907387777297\
3038883717449030628887379284041
so 7379284041. Haskell agrees:
Prelude> (3^349-1) `div` 2
16379019558053662392174130154670449583923965684832704024983781709239694686351321204156509649226080541971824707555797144568969073877772973038883717449030628887379284041
as does Python:
>>> (3**349-1)/2
16379019558053662392174130154670449583923965684832704024983781709239694686351321204156509649226080541971824707555797144568969073877772973038883717449030628887379284041L
Forgive the overkill but I was not sure why you were asking.
--
Ben.
|
|
|
|
