Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #68344 > unrolled thread
| Started by | G G <gdotone@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-25 14:14 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-08-27 13:04 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 291 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
should c be a subset of c++? G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 14:14 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 14:43 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-25 15:26 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-30 09:51 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-30 10:46 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-30 20:55 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-30 13:14 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-31 00:04 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 03:01 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-31 12:11 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 06:31 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-08-31 10:24 -0400
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-31 18:04 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 11:28 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 00:31 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 17:19 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-08-31 22:18 -0400
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 13:32 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 05:37 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 16:51 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 09:45 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 20:04 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 12:15 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 20:33 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 12:41 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 21:02 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 13:14 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-02 00:42 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 17:24 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-01 13:34 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-02 19:07 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-02 19:13 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 10:25 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-04 09:58 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-04 10:06 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-01 06:44 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-01 14:49 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 07:21 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 07:22 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-01 07:33 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-01 08:32 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-01 08:49 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-01 22:58 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-01 22:07 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-02 13:12 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 16:48 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-01 09:15 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 20:00 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-01 12:57 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-01 23:57 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-01 22:57 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-01 22:04 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-02 13:29 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-02 12:37 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-04 04:13 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-03 23:59 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-04 10:13 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-04 01:23 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-04 09:52 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-04 02:03 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-04 10:20 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-04 11:33 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-04 03:13 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-04 12:53 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-04 16:31 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-04 11:43 -0500
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-04 15:07 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 13:36 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 13:57 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-08 10:36 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 06:02 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-04 16:53 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 09:59 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-04 21:13 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-09-04 22:20 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 13:45 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-04 22:21 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 14:53 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-05 00:48 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 20:02 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-05 13:10 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 05:31 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-05 15:46 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 22:19 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-06 14:34 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 07:14 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 17:39 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-06 12:05 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 12:13 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 06:05 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 06:11 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-09-05 10:10 -0400
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 08:51 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-09-05 16:30 -0400
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-05 13:52 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-09-05 21:17 -0400
Re: should c be a subset of c++? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 05:47 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 00:02 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-06 08:20 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 02:23 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 16:34 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-05 16:17 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 16:31 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-05 19:06 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-05 21:12 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 22:23 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-06 14:30 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 07:23 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 17:15 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 09:21 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 09:34 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 21:42 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 17:01 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-06 13:46 -0500
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 12:01 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-09-06 14:22 -0500
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 12:29 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 12:36 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 22:20 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 13:49 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 23:13 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 14:23 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-07 11:55 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 04:00 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-07 12:44 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-06 22:32 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 14:36 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-07 00:08 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-06 23:33 -0500
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-07 12:18 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 21:51 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-06 21:14 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 13:23 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 22:40 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 14:05 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-07 00:11 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 16:43 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-07 01:10 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 17:23 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-07 01:36 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 17:54 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-07 11:03 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-07 15:17 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 07:49 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-07 22:43 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 18:22 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-07 11:00 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-07 15:10 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 07:42 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-09-07 10:26 -0500
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2015-09-07 16:10 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-07 22:39 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 15:16 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-07 17:17 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 08:27 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-07 21:13 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 16:49 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-07 10:54 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 02:26 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-07 12:26 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-06 23:37 -0500
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 00:57 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-06 16:57 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 09:26 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-06 20:41 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 16:55 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-07 01:21 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-06 11:15 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-06 20:03 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-06 20:49 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-08 07:55 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 16:27 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-04 15:14 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-05 00:58 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 01:11 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-05 19:12 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-26 11:39 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 17:47 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-26 12:55 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-26 07:14 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 03:54 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-26 12:01 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 04:07 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-08-26 13:13 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 06:28 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-26 09:05 -0500
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 07:18 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2015-08-26 13:31 -0400
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-26 18:52 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-26 14:04 -0400
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-27 09:25 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-08-26 21:37 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 14:49 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-27 13:16 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 18:47 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-27 14:46 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 19:58 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-27 11:31 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-27 10:40 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-27 03:34 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-27 12:54 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-27 10:46 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-28 07:56 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 13:08 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-27 16:36 -0400
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-28 08:49 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-28 10:24 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-08-27 12:00 -0500
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-27 11:55 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-27 14:09 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-27 15:14 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-28 11:38 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 07:17 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-27 16:24 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-27 18:58 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-27 20:35 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 13:07 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-27 21:36 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 14:31 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-28 08:25 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 13:30 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-27 14:49 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-27 22:34 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-27 16:33 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-28 00:31 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-27 18:16 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-28 10:08 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 04:03 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-28 23:18 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 04:34 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-29 08:03 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-28 12:02 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 06:02 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-29 07:52 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 16:14 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-29 11:26 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-28 18:06 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 18:33 -0500
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-29 11:38 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 17:08 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 17:12 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-29 12:15 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 18:20 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-28 17:13 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-28 12:38 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 04:58 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-28 15:36 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 07:11 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-28 10:57 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-27 16:21 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-28 11:34 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-27 17:16 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-28 13:03 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-27 18:38 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-27 23:29 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-28 01:15 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-28 11:25 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-27 16:39 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-28 00:56 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-28 00:45 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-28 13:05 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-28 10:46 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-28 11:38 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 05:23 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-28 13:51 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 07:20 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-28 09:55 -0500
Re: should c be a subset of c++? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-28 15:10 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 09:03 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-28 13:38 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 06:11 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-28 13:59 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-28 07:31 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-28 20:36 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-28 15:55 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-28 14:57 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-28 17:45 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-28 22:36 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-08-28 23:38 +0000
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-29 09:29 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-28 17:52 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-28 19:27 +0100
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-08-28 21:30 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-29 08:14 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-26 18:51 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-27 14:48 +1200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-26 20:15 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Ayan <selfjam@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 23:59 -0400
Re: should c be a subset of c++? Lőrinczy Zsigmond <zsiga@nospam.for.me> - 2015-08-27 12:03 +0200
Re: should c be a subset of c++? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-08-27 03:33 -0700
Re: should c be a subset of c++? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-27 13:04 +0200
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 10:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <OndGx.421891$aP2.254562@fx38.am4> |
| In reply to | #69268 |
On 04/09/2015 10:03, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:53:15 AM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 04/09/2015 09:23, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >> > If someone asks you "what is PI?", assume it's a ten year old who knows >> > basic arithmetic and is taking his first steps into geometry, what >> > do you say? >> >> Seeing is better than hearing. And doing is better than seeing. So let's >> start with the practice, and then move on to the theory. >> >> I would start by asking him (or her, as the case may be) to measure the >> circumference and diameter of a cup, a plate, a small selection of >> variously-sized jars and bottles, and anything else he or she can find >> that is the right shape. Next, I would invite him (or her) to plot those >> measurements on a graph (giving help where necessary), circumference up >> the left and diameter along the bottom, and ask him (or her) to share >> his (or her) thoughts about the appearance of that graph. And then I >> would (if necessary) steer the conversation towards the idea of a ratio. >> Actually, a bright ten-year-old won't need much steering, if they >> haven't been scared away from mathematics by dry, dusty teaching in the >> past. >> >> Why, what would /you/ say? >> > Your method is better, if you've got a lot of time. > > I'd say "it's a circle's perimeter / circumference divided by its diameter, which > comes to roughly 3.14". I was with you (taking your "circumference" option in preference to "perimeter") right up to the comma. After that, you went downhill rapidly. Teaching children *well* does indeed take time. And if we're going to teach them (rather than let someone else do it), we want to teach them well, don't we? Of course, there is another way of defining pi. It is the reciprocal of the probability that Malcolm has sneakily written an easy-interface PNG library written in ISO C. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 11:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <b0piuad771qd28gg658rqq18dk2nh0qv9g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #69270 |
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 10:20:44 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: >On 04/09/2015 10:03, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:53:15 AM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 04/09/2015 09:23, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> >>> > If someone asks you "what is PI?", assume it's a ten year old who knows >>> > basic arithmetic and is taking his first steps into geometry, what >>> > do you say? >>> >>> Seeing is better than hearing. And doing is better than seeing. So let's >>> start with the practice, and then move on to the theory. >>> >>> I would start by asking him (or her, as the case may be) to measure the >>> circumference and diameter of a cup, a plate, a small selection of >>> variously-sized jars and bottles, and anything else he or she can find >>> that is the right shape. Next, I would invite him (or her) to plot those >>> measurements on a graph (giving help where necessary), circumference up >>> the left and diameter along the bottom, and ask him (or her) to share >>> his (or her) thoughts about the appearance of that graph. And then I >>> would (if necessary) steer the conversation towards the idea of a ratio. >>> Actually, a bright ten-year-old won't need much steering, if they >>> haven't been scared away from mathematics by dry, dusty teaching in the >>> past. >>> >>> Why, what would /you/ say? >>> >> Your method is better, if you've got a lot of time. >> >> I'd say "it's a circle's perimeter / circumference divided by its diameter, which >> comes to roughly 3.14". 4*arctg(1) would be pi if i know one algo for calculate arctg() in 1 I know pi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 03:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b80927a3-7716-4041-a22d-0b14e50c3a9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69270 |
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 10:20:54 AM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 04/09/2015 10:03, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > Of course, there is another way of defining pi. It is the reciprocal of > the probability that Malcolm has sneakily written an easy-interface PNG > library written in ISO C. > I haven't. Another chap has. Drop me an email and I'll send you the code. It's basically public domain, though there are a couple of restrictions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 12:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <msbt3j$fps$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69268 |
On 04/09/15 11:03, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:53:15 AM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 04/09/2015 09:23, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >>> If someone asks you "what is PI?", assume it's a ten year old who knows >>> basic arithmetic and is taking his first steps into geometry, what >>> do you say? >> >> Seeing is better than hearing. And doing is better than seeing. So let's >> start with the practice, and then move on to the theory. >> >> I would start by asking him (or her, as the case may be) to measure the >> circumference and diameter of a cup, a plate, a small selection of >> variously-sized jars and bottles, and anything else he or she can find >> that is the right shape. Next, I would invite him (or her) to plot those >> measurements on a graph (giving help where necessary), circumference up >> the left and diameter along the bottom, and ask him (or her) to share >> his (or her) thoughts about the appearance of that graph. And then I >> would (if necessary) steer the conversation towards the idea of a ratio. >> Actually, a bright ten-year-old won't need much steering, if they >> haven't been scared away from mathematics by dry, dusty teaching in the >> past. >> >> Why, what would /you/ say? >> > Your method is better, if you've got a lot of time. > > I'd say "it's a circle's perimeter / circumference divided by its diameter, which > comes to roughly 3.14". > That's not unreasonable - but personally I would make it clear that it is the perimeter divided by the diameter of /any/ /perfect/ circle. And I would make it clear that you can't write it as a decimal, you can only give an approximation in that way, showing that you can keep adding more digits to get more accurate approximations without ever getting a precise pi.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 16:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55e9c63e.25999406@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #69264 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:13:22 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > > But why do you feel the need to put pi into digits of some sort? Pi is > > what it is. It is a fascinating number, which can be defined in a wide > > variety of ways (that's part of its fascination for me), and used in > > many ways - exactly, precisely, and clearly. Approximating it in some > > way can sometimes be useful, but an approximation is not a definition. > > If someone asks you "what is PI?", assume it's a ten year old who knows > basic arithmetic and is taking his first steps into geometry, what > do you say? "It's the ratio between the radius and the circumference of any circle. It may surprise you, and it certainly surprised people back in ancient Greece when they first discovered it, but yes, this is the same ratio for every circle. And it's a very interesting number which goes on and on and on without any discernible pattern." If he[1] asks what it's value is, I'd say "it starts 3.14159265 and goes on from there, but you don't really need to know that unless you're doing estimates, and then you only need 3.14". If he _still_ insists on knowning "the" value of pi, I'd know with a steely certainty that this boy is not cut out for mathematics, programming, or science, and shove his arse into the direction of the management and economics books - or, oh disgrace, journalism. Richard [1] Let's be honest, this is overwhelmingly likely to be a boy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 11:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <9bijuahmnmchtoaj6s1q2t7qlsqhpdr0f1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #69330 |
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 16:31:03 GMT, raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) wrote: >Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:13:22 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> > But why do you feel the need to put pi into digits of some sort? Pi is >> > what it is. It is a fascinating number, which can be defined in a wide >> > variety of ways (that's part of its fascination for me), and used in >> > many ways - exactly, precisely, and clearly. Approximating it in some >> > way can sometimes be useful, but an approximation is not a definition. >> >> If someone asks you "what is PI?", assume it's a ten year old who knows >> basic arithmetic and is taking his first steps into geometry, what >> do you say? > >"It's the ratio between the radius and the circumference of any circle. >It may surprise you, and it certainly surprised people back in ancient >Greece when they first discovered it, but yes, this is the same ratio >for every circle. And it's a very interesting number which goes on and >on and on without any discernible pattern." > >If he[1] asks what it's value is, I'd say "it starts 3.14159265 and goes >on from there, but you don't really need to know that unless you're >doing estimates, and then you only need 3.14". > >If he _still_ insists on knowning "the" value of pi, I'd know with a >steely certainty that this boy is not cut out for mathematics, >programming, or science, and shove his arse into the direction of the >management and economics books - or, oh disgrace, journalism. > >Richard > >[1] Let's be honest, this is overwhelmingly likely to be a boy. For a 10 year old? My memories of that time grow dim, but I'm pretty sure I didn't have a firm concept of irrational and transcendental numbers by then. Or even their existence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <507d948d-50b9-4842-ae47-96999464b0c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69333 |
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 5:42:07 PM UTC+1, robert...@yahoo.com wrote: > > For a 10 year old? My memories of that time grow dim, but I'm pretty > sure I didn't have a firm concept of irrational and transcendental > numbers by then. Or even their existence. > No, I remember some boys talking about PI when I was about that age. They were joking about getting lots of digits, then one said "or just 22/7". They genuinely believed that that ratio would give the digits. I knew that was wrong, even then (which is why I remember it), but I couldn't have explained what an irrational number was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnegibs2tc.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #69330 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:13:22 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >>> But why do you feel the need to put pi into digits of some sort? Pi is >>> what it is. It is a fascinating number, which can be defined in a wide >>> variety of ways (that's part of its fascination for me), and used in >>> many ways - exactly, precisely, and clearly. Approximating it in some >>> way can sometimes be useful, but an approximation is not a definition. >> >> If someone asks you "what is PI?", assume it's a ten year old who knows >> basic arithmetic and is taking his first steps into geometry, what >> do you say? > > "It's the ratio between the radius and the circumference of any circle. > [snip] Let's hear it for tau!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 13:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3304c9bf-ec53-48e1-afc2-699035a9ea28@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69663 |
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 4:36:24 PM UTC-4, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
> > "It's the ratio between the radius and the circumference of any circle.
> > [snip]
>
> Let's hear it for tau!
There's a fairly convincing argument made for eta. I like his proposal
best of all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qpVdwizdvI
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 10:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1t6uuad9548cev0ml8p2qdo3hs4a5cdp2l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #69330 |
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 16:31:03 GMT, raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos)
wrote:
>Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:13:22 AM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>> > But why do you feel the need to put pi into digits of some sort? Pi is
>> > what it is. It is a fascinating number, which can be defined in a wide
>> > variety of ways (that's part of its fascination for me), and used in
>> > many ways - exactly, precisely, and clearly. Approximating it in some
>> > way can sometimes be useful, but an approximation is not a definition.
>>
If you answered the boy's question in this manner you would be wrong.
Circumference = pi * Diameter, not radius.
>> If someone asks you "what is PI?", assume it's a ten year old who knows
>> basic arithmetic and is taking his first steps into geometry, what
>> do you say?
>
>"It's the ratio between the radius and the circumference of any circle.
>It may surprise you, and it certainly surprised people back in ancient
>Greece when they first discovered it, but yes, this is the same ratio
>for every circle. And it's a very interesting number which goes on and
>on and on without any discernible pattern."
>
>If he[1] asks what it's value is, I'd say "it starts 3.14159265 and goes
>on from there, but you don't really need to know that unless you're
>doing estimates, and then you only need 3.14".
>
In this instance, your imprecise numerical answer was more accurate
than your statement about how it is computed.
>If he _still_ insists on knowning "the" value of pi, I'd know with a
>steely certainty that this boy is not cut out for mathematics,
>programming, or science, and shove his arse into the direction of the
>management and economics books - or, oh disgrace, journalism.
>
>Richard
>
>[1] Let's be honest, this is overwhelmingly likely to be a boy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 06:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96b0fc0c-aa85-4fb4-b6b2-ff513c5557bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69263 |
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:22 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> But why do you feel the need to put pi into digits of some sort?
Application.
> Pi is
> what it is. It is a fascinating number, which can be defined in a wide
> variety of ways (that's part of its fascination for me), and used in
> many ways - exactly, precisely, and clearly. Approximating it in some
> way can sometimes be useful, but an approximation is not a definition.
You bring up an interesting concept. Consider: what if rather than
having a computer which actually computes work in steps, it carries
forward tags regarding the operations that should be applied to it
when needed via real evaluation:
; someVar = (someVar + 2) * 5;
xor edx,edx
mov eax,someVar
add eax,2
mov ebx,5
mul ebx
mov someVar,eax
Rather than doing the above in steps (with someVar being populated
by the end of the asm code block), why not have it do this:
Given:
someVar, a 32-bit quantity with initial value of 1
Compute:
someVar appends an annotation to add 2
someVar appends an annotation to multiply by 5
Resulting in the value not being a value, but existing in
memory as an array of steps which describe it, able to be
wielded as they are with only memory moves, and not real
work being done (at this point):
struct SVarOps // Discriminating union for each op-data
{
int op; // 0=value, 1=add, 2=multiply
int type; // Type of storage 0=int, d=double
// Storage:
union {
int i;
double d;
// Etc.
};
};
// Final array after initial value, and two ops:
struct SVarOps someVar[3] =
{
{0, 0, 1}, // Initial value 1
{1, 0, 2}, // Add op 2
{2, 0, 5} // Multiply op 5
// Result would be available here
};
So in memory, instead of doing an actual compute, we just tag on
additional SVarOps ops to the existing array, and then wield those
through subsequent usages. If someVar is later referenced in a form
which needs actual computation as for final result or decision, only
then does it need to be computed. Until then, its attributes are
added to those which already exist at wherever it's used, allowing
it to be carried forward, possibly being computed (in parallel along
with other variables) in the background, continuously as machine
resources are available, allowing for massively parallel work on
what would otherwise be serial workloads. A type of L2 cache memory
could be used for these ops, which, when machine resources become
saturated the instruction stream is paused until the ops are freed
and it returns to a base op type of 0 for value storage. But so long
as machine resources are not saturated, each use continues propagating
through the instruction stream without real compute work being done at
that time, but rather just tags are added.
I wonder if that's how the universe works? Schrodinger's cat... an
array of SVarOps[] which weren't computed until actually needed? :-)
Would resolve the paradox. :-)
-----
In truth, I had this idea back in 2007. I went to interview some
people at Intel over Terascale and I met Jerry Bautista and spoke
with him at length over Terascale's teraflop-on-a-chip performance.
I was really enthralled with the design.
After listening to him, I had the idea at that time of carrying ops
forward like this, appending on ops and computing them in parallel
after the steps are conveyed thru the ISA, only stalling when a
decision needed to be made on the computed answer, such as for
branching, or final output.
I still like that idea. I've considered how it would be implemented
in hardware. I've considered it also for a follow-on CPU after my
LibSF 386-x40.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 16:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87mvx2b2q2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #69304 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:22 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: >> But why do you feel the need to put pi into digits of some sort? > > Application. You missed the word need. You don't *need* to do that to apply pi. Programs just shuffle symbols around. They don't "know" what they are doing. I program that contains certain rules about the symbols 0, 1, ... 9 etc can do decimal arithmetic. Other programs can have rules about symbols like pi and e and sqtr(2) (though they will most likely *also* be able to do arithmetic!). <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 09:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60c921c2-777d-4441-83c8-d1ea66ad7b26@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69322 |
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 11:53:32 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:22 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: > >> But why do you feel the need to put pi into digits of some sort? > > > > Application. > > You missed the word need. You don't *need* to do that to apply pi. > Programs just shuffle symbols around. They don't "know" what they are > doing. I program that contains certain rules about the symbols 0, 1, > ... 9 etc can do decimal arithmetic. Other programs can have rules > about symbols like pi and e and sqtr(2) (though they will most likely > *also* be able to do arithmetic!). Symbolically, yes. Programs like Mathematica can manipulate them in their formula/symbolic form. But, even Mathematica will compute the values for real-world application, such as rendering a graph or plot showing the formula of the thing using pi. And for real-world applications: Bzzzzzzz! Wrong! In order to calculate my rocket trajectory to the moon I need to compute the value of pi to some numerical value that has meaning in the real world (the application) so that I can find out if I'm going to crash into the surface, go into a stable orbit, or bypass the moon into a death orbit never to return. My calculations at various points allow me to send rocket fuel into the starboard engines to correct for anomalies in my flight path, etc. People really do need to apply things into practical applications. It's not enough to know that you can, based on technology and plans, build a perfect house. People still need a place to live. You have to apply what you know into the real world. I really wonder about you, Ben. But I'm about to stop doing that. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 21:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87y4gmkknz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #69338 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 11:53:32 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:22 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: >> >> But why do you feel the need to put pi into digits of some sort? >> > >> > Application. >> >> You missed the word need. You don't *need* to do that to apply pi. >> Programs just shuffle symbols around. They don't "know" what they are >> doing. I program that contains certain rules about the symbols 0, 1, >> ... 9 etc can do decimal arithmetic. Other programs can have rules >> about symbols like pi and e and sqtr(2) (though they will most likely >> *also* be able to do arithmetic!). > > Symbolically, yes. Programs like Mathematica can manipulate them in > their formula/symbolic form. But, even Mathematica will compute the > values for real-world application, such as rendering a graph or plot > showing the formula of the thing using pi. > > And for real-world applications: Bzzzzzzz! Wrong! As a rule, when someone starts to rely on the properties of this odd place called the real-world (a place often inhabited, it seems, by only one person), the argument is effectively over. But adding an elastic adjective will, perhaps, keep it going a bit longer. > In order to calculate my rocket trajectory to the moon I need to > compute the value of pi to some numerical value that has meaning in > the real world Do you think that rocket scientists don't do calculations that involve pi (including numerical ones) without an approximation of pi? I'm no rocket scientist, but I would be flabbergasted if they don't. If you ask a maths package for the definite, numerical, integral of sin(x) from, say, 0 to pi, it won't use an approximation of pi. The same is true for all sorts of functions, integral and so on. Do "real-world" scientists and engineers never do such calculations? <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 22:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20150904222033.7c7381b6@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #69353 |
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 21:13:20 +0100 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 11:53:32 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse > > wrote: > >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:22 AM UTC-4, David Brown > >> > wrote: > >> >> But why do you feel the need to put pi into digits of some sort? > >> > > >> > Application. > >> > >> You missed the word need. You don't *need* to do that to apply pi. > >> Programs just shuffle symbols around. They don't "know" what they > >> are doing. I program that contains certain rules about the > >> symbols 0, 1, ... 9 etc can do decimal arithmetic. Other programs > >> can have rules about symbols like pi and e and sqtr(2) (though > >> they will most likely *also* be able to do arithmetic!). > > > > Symbolically, yes. Programs like Mathematica can manipulate them in > > their formula/symbolic form. But, even Mathematica will compute the > > values for real-world application, such as rendering a graph or plot > > showing the formula of the thing using pi. > > > > And for real-world applications: Bzzzzzzz! Wrong! > > As a rule, when someone starts to rely on the properties of this odd > place called the real-world (a place often inhabited, it seems, by > only one person), the argument is effectively over. But adding an > elastic adjective will, perhaps, keep it going a bit longer. > > > In order to calculate my rocket trajectory to the moon I need to > > compute the value of pi to some numerical value that has meaning in > > the real world > > Do you think that rocket scientists don't do calculations that involve > pi (including numerical ones) without an approximation of pi? I'm no > rocket scientist, but I would be flabbergasted if they don't. If you > ask a maths package for the definite, numerical, integral of sin(x) > from, say, 0 to pi, it won't use an approximation of pi. The same is > true for all sorts of functions, integral and so on. Do "real-world" > scientists and engineers never do such calculations? I remember that every calculation involving approximation also had calculation of error. When error is low enough one is satisfied with calculation...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 13:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <629d0fa4-5aba-4b46-9ede-3f7e2e13701d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69353 |
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 11:53:32 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:22 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: > >> >> But why do you feel the need to put pi into digits of some sort? > >> > > >> > Application. > >> > >> You missed the word need. You don't *need* to do that to apply pi. > >> Programs just shuffle symbols around. They don't "know" what they are > >> doing. I program that contains certain rules about the symbols 0, 1, > >> ... 9 etc can do decimal arithmetic. Other programs can have rules > >> about symbols like pi and e and sqtr(2) (though they will most likely > >> *also* be able to do arithmetic!). > > > > Symbolically, yes. Programs like Mathematica can manipulate them in > > their formula/symbolic form. But, even Mathematica will compute the > > values for real-world application, such as rendering a graph or plot > > showing the formula of the thing using pi. > > > > And for real-world applications: Bzzzzzzz! Wrong! > > As a rule, when someone starts to rely on the properties of this odd > place called the real-world (a place often inhabited, it seems, by only > one person), the argument is effectively over. But adding an elastic > adjective will, perhaps, keep it going a bit longer. While not being perfect, it seems to provide sufficiently. People every day are able to eat, commune, get married, have kids, learn, grow, share, teach, and come to Jesus Christ, repent of their sin, and enter in to eternal life. What more do you need down here when you have the promise of a better tomorrow with Him in Heaven? > > In order to calculate my rocket trajectory to the moon I need to > > compute the value of pi to some numerical value that has meaning in > > the real world > > Do you think that rocket scientists don't do calculations that involve > pi (including numerical ones) without an approximation of pi? I'm no > rocket scientist, but I would be flabbergasted if they don't. If you > ask a maths package for the definite, numerical, integral of sin(x) > from, say, 0 to pi, it won't use an approximation of pi. The same is > true for all sorts of functions, integral and so on. Do "real-world" > scientists and engineers never do such calculations? You're making my argument. There's the concept of pi, able to be wielded through calculations, and then there's the application of pi, which is targeted for something, at some resolution. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 22:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87si6tlw3n.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #69360 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 11:53:32 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> >> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:22 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: >> >> >> But why do you feel the need to put pi into digits of some sort? >> >> > >> >> > Application. >> >> >> >> You missed the word need. You don't *need* to do that to apply pi. <snip> >> > In order to calculate my rocket trajectory to the moon I need to >> > compute the value of pi to some numerical value that has meaning in >> > the real world >> >> Do you think that rocket scientists don't do calculations that involve >> pi (including numerical ones) without an approximation of pi? I'm no >> rocket scientist, but I would be flabbergasted if they don't. If you >> ask a maths package for the definite, numerical, integral of sin(x) >> from, say, 0 to pi, it won't use an approximation of pi. The same is >> true for all sorts of functions, integral and so on. Do "real-world" >> scientists and engineers never do such calculations? > > You're making my argument. There's the concept of pi, able to be > wielded through calculations, and then there's the application of > pi, which is targeted for something, at some resolution. I am always happy when you agree with me, but do you see how you could have been misinterpreted as saying that calculations involving pi must use a numerical approximation to it? I've left the key exchange that made me think you thought that. I hope you also agree it *could* be seen as suggesting you think differently to me. Anyway, we both agree that some applications of pi do need a numerical approximation to it and some don't. It's hardly a contentious point. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 14:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb9cd5c6-3f72-4b8e-ba61-d91b6a9683c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69361 |
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 5:21:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 11:53:32 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > >> >> > >> >> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:22 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: > >> >> >> But why do you feel the need to put pi into digits of some sort? > >> >> > > >> >> > Application. > >> >> > >> >> You missed the word need. You don't *need* to do that to apply pi. > <snip> > >> > In order to calculate my rocket trajectory to the moon I need to > >> > compute the value of pi to some numerical value that has meaning in > >> > the real world > >> > >> Do you think that rocket scientists don't do calculations that involve > >> pi (including numerical ones) without an approximation of pi? I'm no > >> rocket scientist, but I would be flabbergasted if they don't. If you > >> ask a maths package for the definite, numerical, integral of sin(x) > >> from, say, 0 to pi, it won't use an approximation of pi. The same is > >> true for all sorts of functions, integral and so on. Do "real-world" > >> scientists and engineers never do such calculations? > > > > You're making my argument. There's the concept of pi, able to be > > wielded through calculations, and then there's the application of > > pi, which is targeted for something, at some resolution. > > I am always happy when you agree with me, but do you see how you could > have been misinterpreted as saying that calculations involving pi must > use a numerical approximation to it? No. I said that in order to utilize anything physically in this universe, it has to be projected from the ideal into something real, stating even that as creations of God He's given us, beings which manifest in this universe, the ability to envision things beyond it. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. And I've really been surprised by your replies. > I've left the key exchange that > made me think you thought that. I hope you also agree it *could* be > seen as suggesting you think differently to me. I do think differently than you. Evidence galore there. > Anyway, we both agree that some applications of pi do need a numerical > approximation to it and some don't. It's hardly a contentious point. It's so difficult communicating with you at times, Ben. You and I are such opposites. I just cannot place my thinking into your point of view. It leaves a large gap between us on most everything. For example, the "It's hardly a contentious point" comment here sent me to YouTube looking for a hearty laugh video I was going to link. It struck me as very funny given the exchange. In any event... good day to you, Ben. Enjoy your weekend. I'll be helping my father with some welding jobs. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 00:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87mvx1lpah.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #69364 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 5:21:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> >> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 11:53:32 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >> >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:22 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: >> >> >> >> But why do you feel the need to put pi into digits of some sort? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Application. >> >> >> >> >> >> You missed the word need. You don't *need* to do that to apply pi. >> <snip> >> >> > In order to calculate my rocket trajectory to the moon I need to >> >> > compute the value of pi to some numerical value that has meaning in >> >> > the real world >> >> >> >> Do you think that rocket scientists don't do calculations that involve >> >> pi (including numerical ones) without an approximation of pi? I'm no >> >> rocket scientist, but I would be flabbergasted if they don't. If you >> >> ask a maths package for the definite, numerical, integral of sin(x) >> >> from, say, 0 to pi, it won't use an approximation of pi. The same is >> >> true for all sorts of functions, integral and so on. Do "real-world" >> >> scientists and engineers never do such calculations? >> > >> > You're making my argument. There's the concept of pi, able to be >> > wielded through calculations, and then there's the application of >> > pi, which is targeted for something, at some resolution. >> >> I am always happy when you agree with me, but do you see how you could >> have been misinterpreted as saying that calculations involving pi must >> use a numerical approximation to it? > > No. Well that's a shame, but I won't argue the point. At least one person misunderstood you! > I said that in order to utilize anything physically in this > universe, it has to be projected from the ideal into something real, That sounds like waffle. My point -- that you can do practical numerical calculations with pi without approximating it -- is certainly true, but despite the vagueness of this last remark of yours I can't shake the feeling that you dispute it. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 20:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <659d80d7-7620-45bc-982f-72f680c9e52e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69377 |
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 7:48:21 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 5:21:16 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:34 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > >> >> > >> >> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 11:53:32 AM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >> >> >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:13:22 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: > >> >> >> >> But why do you feel the need to put pi into digits of some sort? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Application. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You missed the word need. You don't *need* to do that to apply pi. > >> <snip> > >> >> > In order to calculate my rocket trajectory to the moon I need to > >> >> > compute the value of pi to some numerical value that has meaning in > >> >> > the real world > >> >> > >> >> Do you think that rocket scientists don't do calculations that involve > >> >> pi (including numerical ones) without an approximation of pi? I'm no > >> >> rocket scientist, but I would be flabbergasted if they don't. If you > >> >> ask a maths package for the definite, numerical, integral of sin(x) > >> >> from, say, 0 to pi, it won't use an approximation of pi. The same is > >> >> true for all sorts of functions, integral and so on. Do "real-world" > >> >> scientists and engineers never do such calculations? > >> > > >> > You're making my argument. There's the concept of pi, able to be > >> > wielded through calculations, and then there's the application of > >> > pi, which is targeted for something, at some resolution. > >> > >> I am always happy when you agree with me, but do you see how you could > >> have been misinterpreted as saying that calculations involving pi must > >> use a numerical approximation to it? > > > > No. > > Well that's a shame, but I won't argue the point. At least one person > misunderstood you! > > > I said that in order to utilize anything physically in this > > universe, it has to be projected from the ideal into something real, > > That sounds like waffle. My point -- that you can do practical > numerical calculations with pi without approximating it -- is certainly > true, but despite the vagueness of this last remark of yours I can't > shake the feeling that you dispute it. Well start shaking. It's been my position all along. My position has been that you can manipulate things in formula or symbolic form until your heart's content, but when it comes to actually using a result based on that formula for anything other than theory ... then you have to project it onto something real, which means translation from the symbolic form to a real number. However, with the struct SVarOps idea I had posted earlier today... Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web