Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #2076 20130119 21:55:25
Re: What do you think?Sure, arxiv "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #2077 20130119 21:58:31
Re: What do you think?Hi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #2078 20130119 22:01:24
Re: What do you think?Hi, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #2079 20130119 22:12:57
Re: What do you think?Hi gAr; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #2080 20130119 23:02:01
Re: What do you think?No problem, see you later.. "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #2081 20130120 12:15:20
Re: What do you think?Hi gAr; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #2082 20130122 04:02:15
Re: What do you think?Hi bobbym, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #2083 20130122 09:21:46
Re: What do you think?Use the built in square root function, then take the floor and the ceiling of that number. Add one and subtract one to each one. Now square each one and match it to the number you are testing. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #2084 20130122 17:25:29
Re: What do you think?
How is that different from the code code I have proposed?! The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #2085 20130122 20:53:46
Re: What do you think?
For one thing, I am proposing testing 4 numbers rather than 2. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #2086 20130122 21:09:34
Re: What do you think?Of those 4 numbers, 2 will never be the square root of the given number, with rounding errors or without... The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #2087 20130122 21:18:29
Re: What do you think?Hi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #2088 20130122 21:26:49
Re: What do you think?Hi bobbym Last edited by anonimnystefy (20130122 21:27:17) The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #2089 20130122 21:32:21
Re: What do you think?Hi;
If you are demanding correctnes you do not even know if your idea would always work. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #2090 20130122 23:23:55
Re: What do you think?Hi bobbym, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #2091 20130122 23:28:28
Re: What do you think?Hi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #2092 20130122 23:33:19
Re: What do you think?Yes, I know you were talking about using the builtin sqrt, but I'm not sure whether that will be faster than our own integer sqrt. "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #2093 20130122 23:43:58
Re: What do you think?The speed question is secondary. I have no proof that mine will work in every case. It was just a suggestion. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #2094 20130123 00:04:40
Re: What do you think?Hi bobbym, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #2095 20130123 01:00:42
Re: What do you think?So you will go with the isqrt routine? You wanted more speed than Sage could provide? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #2096 20130123 01:53:34
Re: What do you think?Yes, I wanted more speed, since looping is a lot slower in sage. "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #2097 20130123 01:56:34
Re: What do you think?Perhaps Sage, has a single command that does what you want? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #2098 20130123 02:11:58
Re: What do you think?You mean, to solve the diophantine equation? "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." #2099 20130123 02:16:52
Re: What do you think?Hi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #2100 20130123 02:20:43
Re: What do you think?That's already there, I was concerned about the requirement to loop through each integer. "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"  Buddha? "Data! Data! Data!" he cried impatiently. "I can't make bricks without clay." 