Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #27786 > unrolled thread

Optimise adder

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 07:19 -0700
    Re: Optimise adder Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-21 16:01 +0100
      Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 08:43 -0700
      Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 08:54 -0700
        Re: Optimise adder Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-21 17:04 +0100
          Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 09:13 -0700
            Re: Optimise adder Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-21 20:01 +0100
              Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 12:39 -0700
                Re: Optimise adder Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-21 21:43 +0100
              Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 12:52 -0700
                Re: Optimise adder Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-21 21:40 +0100
                  Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 14:30 -0700
                    Re: Optimise adder Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-22 00:10 +0100
                      Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 23:20 -0700
                        Re: Optimise adder Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-22 10:45 +0100
                          Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-22 02:56 -0700
                            Re: Optimise adder Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-22 11:25 +0100
                              Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-22 04:37 -0700
                                Re: Optimise adder Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-22 13:21 +0100
                              Re: Optimise adder Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-05-22 18:14 +0000
                      Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 23:24 -0700
                        Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-22 01:18 -0700
                          Re: Optimise adder Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-22 10:41 +0100
                            Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-22 02:52 -0700
                              Re: Optimise adder Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-22 13:17 +0100
                                Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-22 05:59 -0700
                                  Re: Optimise adder Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-22 17:37 +0100
                                    Re: Optimise adder Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2015-05-22 18:17 +0000
                                      Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-22 12:58 -0700
                                  Re: Optimise adder "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-23 00:08 +0200
                        Re: Optimise adder Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-22 10:38 +0100
        Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 09:05 -0700
          Re: Optimise adder Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-21 20:03 +0100
    Re: Optimise adder "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-21 22:51 +0200
      Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 15:26 -0700
        Re: Optimise adder "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2015-05-22 13:40 +0200
        Re: Optimise adder Scott Sauyet <scott.sauyet@gmail.com> - 2015-05-26 06:20 -0700
          Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-06-06 04:01 -0700
            Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-06-06 04:09 -0700
              Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-06-06 04:15 -0700
                Re: Optimise adder jonas.thornvall@gmail.com - 2015-06-06 05:33 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#27786 — Optimise adder

Feel free try to make it faster but still keep it general "anybase". It assumes input formatted in base. And arrOne>=arrTwo. Addresult holds the result of the integer adds.

<script language="Javascript">

/* ADD TWO THE TWO VARIABLES STORED IN ADDONE AND ADDTWO USING CHOSEN BASE */

function naiveAddB(base, addOne, addTwo)
{
   abigArr = addOne.length;
   asmallArr = addTwo.length;
   addResult = [];
   remainder = 0;
   for (i = 0; i < abigArr; i ++ )
   {
      if (isNaN(addTwo[i])) addTwo[i] = 0;
      addResult[i] = addOne[i] + addTwo[i] + remainder;
      if (addResult[i] >= base)
      {
         addResult[i] = addResult[i] - base;
         remainder = 1;
      }
      else
      {
         remainder = 0;
      }
   }

   // If strings of equal length but there is a remainder;
   if (remainder == 1)
   {
      addResult[i ++ ] = 1;
   }
   else
   {
      addResult.splice(i, 1);
   }
   return addResult;
}

base=10;
var arrOne = [3,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,,2,1,0];
var arrTwo = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0];

/* TIMER START */
var start = new Date().getTime();
for(j=1;j<10000;j++) {
addResult=naiveAddB(base,arrOne,arrTwo);
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
document.write(addResult,"<BR>"," Timing = ", time, " ms");

</script>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#27789

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:

> Feel free try to make it faster

Optimising bad code is not an appealing project.

The correct plan is to re-write it as a proper function and, what's
more, make it a function that operates on some big number object type.

> but still keep it general "anybase".

It does not seem to permit any base.  You claimed to be allowing
arbitrary precision numbers as the base, but the code assumes that the
base is an ECMAScript Number value.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27790

Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 17:01:39 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> 
> > Feel free try to make it faster
> 
> Optimising bad code is not an appealing project.
> 
> The correct plan is to re-write it as a proper function and, what's
> more, make it a function that operates on some big number object type.
> 
> > but still keep it general "anybase".
> 
> It does not seem to permit any base.  You claimed to be allowing
> arbitrary precision numbers as the base, but the code assumes that the
> base is an ECMAScript Number value.
> 
> <snip>
> -- 
> Ben.
Well you would have to format the imput to that base. But the function allow anybase upto integer size of JavaScript which of course mean that it allow add upto sqrt integer size if equal size operands. Or integer size for operand one and zero for two. 

If you want format it to Another base you can use this.
http://jt.node365.se/arithmeitc04.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27791

Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 17:01:39 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> 
> > Feel free try to make it faster
> 
> Optimising bad code is not an appealing project.
> 
> The correct plan is to re-write it as a proper function and, what's
> more, make it a function that operates on some big number object type.
> 
> > but still keep it general "anybase".
> 
> It does not seem to permit any base.  You claimed to be allowing
> arbitrary precision numbers as the base, but the code assumes that the
> base is an ECMAScript Number value.
> 
> <snip>
> -- 
> Ben.
Actually it is infinite precision arithmetic, i have no idea what you mean you simply feed it two times if you want decimals, and carry over a 1 if to the second add if needed. There is no extra penalty in time for that. The decimals Points is handled by the parser.

It permit anybase, but you have to format your number into that base Before feeding the function, try base two.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27792

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:

> Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 17:01:39 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>> > Feel free try to make it faster
>> 
>> Optimising bad code is not an appealing project.
>> 
>> The correct plan is to re-write it as a proper function and, what's
>> more, make it a function that operates on some big number object type.
>> 
>> > but still keep it general "anybase".
>> 
>> It does not seem to permit any base.  You claimed to be allowing
>> arbitrary precision numbers as the base, but the code assumes that the
>> base is an ECMAScript Number value.
>> 
>> <snip>
>> -- 
>> Ben.

Is there any chance that I can persuade you to follow Usenet conventions
and (1) snip signatures; (2) reply in-line to the points being made?

> Actually it is infinite precision arithmetic, i have no idea what you
> mean you simply feed it two times if you want decimals, and carry over
> a 1 if to the second add if needed. There is no extra penalty in time
> for that. The decimals Points is handled by the parser.
>
> It permit anybase, but you have to format your number into that base
> Before feeding the function, try base two.

The code you posted does not permit any base.

The discussion would be more productive if you addressed the points made
rather than quoting the full message and the adding something that you
feel is relevant at the end.  I explain exactly why your code does not
permit any base and exactly why I though that was a key part of your
project.  You did not address either of these points.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27794

Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> 
> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 17:01:39 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> 
> >> > Feel free try to make it faster
> >> 
> >> Optimising bad code is not an appealing project.
> >> 
> >> The correct plan is to re-write it as a proper function and, what's
> >> more, make it a function that operates on some big number object type.
> >> 
> >> > but still keep it general "anybase".
> >> 
> >> It does not seem to permit any base.  You claimed to be allowing
> >> arbitrary precision numbers as the base, but the code assumes that the
> >> base is an ECMAScript Number value.
> >> 
> >> <snip>
> >> -- 
> >> Ben.
> 
> Is there any chance that I can persuade you to follow Usenet conventions
> and (1) snip signatures; (2) reply in-line to the points being made?
> 
> > Actually it is infinite precision arithmetic, i have no idea what you
> > mean you simply feed it two times if you want decimals, and carry over
> > a 1 if to the second add if needed. There is no extra penalty in time
> > for that. The decimals Points is handled by the parser.
> >
> > It permit anybase, but you have to format your number into that base
> > Before feeding the function, try base two.
> 
> The code you posted does not permit any base.

Not true, here i changed base same code, different number format.

It does add in linear time in anybase.

<script language="Javascript">

/* ADD TWO THE TWO VARIABLES STORED IN ADDONE AND ADDTWO USING CHOSEN BASE */

function naiveAddB(base, addOne, addTwo)
{
   abigArr = addOne.length;
   asmallArr = addTwo.length;
   addResult = [];
   remainder = 0;
   for (i = 0; i < abigArr; i ++ )
   {
      if (isNaN(addTwo[i])) addTwo[i] = 0;
      addResult[i] = addOne[i] + addTwo[i] + remainder;
      if (addResult[i] >= base)
      {
         addResult[i] = addResult[i] - base;
         remainder = 1;
      }
      else
      {
         remainder = 0;
      }
   }

   // If strings of equal length but there is a remainder;
   if (remainder == 1)
   {
      addResult[i ++ ] = 1;
   }
   else
   {
      addResult.splice(i, 1);
   }
   return addResult;
}

base=2;
var arrOne = [0,1,1,1,0,1];
var arrTwo = [1,1,1,1,1,1]
/* TIMER START */
var start = new Date().getTime();
for(j=1;j<10000;j++) {
addResult=naiveAddB(base,arrOne,arrTwo);
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
document.write(addResult,"<BR>"," Timing = ", time, " ms");

</script> 





> The discussion would be more productive if you addressed the points made
> rather than quoting the full message and the adding something that you
> feel is relevant at the end.  I explain exactly why your code does not
> permit any base and exactly why I though that was a key part of your
> project.  You did not address either of these points.
> 
> -- 
> Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27796

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:

> Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 17:01:39 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > Feel free try to make it faster
>> >> 
>> >> Optimising bad code is not an appealing project.
>> >> 
>> >> The correct plan is to re-write it as a proper function and, what's
>> >> more, make it a function that operates on some big number object type.
>> >> 
>> >> > but still keep it general "anybase".
>> >> 
>> >> It does not seem to permit any base.  You claimed to be allowing
>> >> arbitrary precision numbers as the base, but the code assumes that the
>> >> base is an ECMAScript Number value.
>> >> 
>> >> <snip>
>> >> -- 
>> >> Ben.
>> 
>> Is there any chance that I can persuade you to follow Usenet conventions
>> and (1) snip signatures; (2) reply in-line to the points being made?
>> 
>> > Actually it is infinite precision arithmetic, i have no idea what you
>> > mean you simply feed it two times if you want decimals, and carry over
>> > a 1 if to the second add if needed. There is no extra penalty in time
>> > for that. The decimals Points is handled by the parser.
>> >
>> > It permit anybase, but you have to format your number into that base
>> > Before feeding the function, try base two.
>> 
>> The code you posted does not permit any base.
>
> Not true, here i changed base same code, different number format.

Yes, true.  Here's a test case for you:

  base=9007199254740992;
  var arrOne = [base-1];
  var arrTwo = [2];

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27797

Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 21:03:40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> 
> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> 
> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 17:01:39 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Feel free try to make it faster
> >> >> 
> >> >> Optimising bad code is not an appealing project.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The correct plan is to re-write it as a proper function and, what's
> >> >> more, make it a function that operates on some big number object type.
> >> >> 
> >> >> > but still keep it general "anybase".
> >> >> 
> >> >> It does not seem to permit any base.  You claimed to be allowing
> >> >> arbitrary precision numbers as the base, but the code assumes that the
> >> >> base is an ECMAScript Number value.
> >> >> 
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> -- 
> >> >> Ben.
> >> 
> >> Is there any chance that I can persuade you to follow Usenet conventions
> >> and (1) snip signatures; (2) reply in-line to the points being made?
> >> 
> >> > Actually it is infinite precision arithmetic, i have no idea what you
> >> > mean you simply feed it two times if you want decimals, and carry over
> >> > a 1 if to the second add if needed. There is no extra penalty in time
> >> > for that. The decimals Points is handled by the parser.
> >> >
> >> > It permit anybase, but you have to format your number into that base
> >> > Before feeding the function, try base two.
> >> 
> >> The code you posted does not permit any base.
> >
> > Not true, here i changed base same code, different number format.
> 
> Yes, true.  Here's a test case for you:
> 
>   base=9007199254740992;
>   var arrOne = [base-1];
>   var arrTwo = [2];
> 
> <snip>
> -- 
> Ben.

You are oncfused Ben or trolling i know you understand that if the array is reversed also any output more than one digit has to be reversed.

See example below. **WORK JUST FINE***
base=900719925474091;

var arrOne = [900719925474092];
var arrTwo = [99999999999999];

100000000000000,1  The array is reversed and so are the big number... It is correct.
Timing = 4 ms


<script language="Javascript">

/* ADD TWO THE TWO VARIABLES STORED IN ADDONE AND ADDTWO USING CHOSEN BASE */

function naiveAddB(base, addOne, addTwo)
{
   abigArr = addOne.length;
   asmallArr = addTwo.length;
   addResult = [];
   remainder = 0;
   for (i = 0; i < abigArr; i ++ )
   {
      if (isNaN(addTwo[i])) addTwo[i] = 0;
      addResult[i] = addOne[i] + addTwo[i] + remainder;
      if (addResult[i] >= base)
      {
         addResult[i] = addResult[i] - base;
         remainder = 1;
      }
      else
      {
         remainder = 0;
      }
   }

   // If strings of equal length but there is a remainder;
   if (remainder == 1)
   {
      addResult[i ++ ] = 1;
   }
   else
   {
      addResult.splice(i, 1);
   }
   return addResult;
}

base=900719925474091;

var arrOne = [900719925474092];
var arrTwo = [99999999999999];


//base=2;
//var arrOne = [0,1,1,1,0,1];
//var arrTwo = [1,1,1,1,1,1]
/* TIMER START */
var start = new Date().getTime();
for(j=1;j<10000;j++) {
addResult=naiveAddB(base,arrOne,arrTwo);
}
var end = new Date().getTime();
var time = end - start;
document.write(addResult,"<BR>"," Timing = ", time, " ms");

</script>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27800

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:

> Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 21:03:40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 17:01:39 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > Feel free try to make it faster
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Optimising bad code is not an appealing project.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> The correct plan is to re-write it as a proper function and, what's
>> >> >> more, make it a function that operates on some big number object type.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > but still keep it general "anybase".
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> It does not seem to permit any base.  You claimed to be allowing
>> >> >> arbitrary precision numbers as the base, but the code assumes that the
>> >> >> base is an ECMAScript Number value.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> -- 
>> >> >> Ben.
>> >> 
>> >> Is there any chance that I can persuade you to follow Usenet conventions
>> >> and (1) snip signatures; (2) reply in-line to the points being made?
>> >> 
>> >> > Actually it is infinite precision arithmetic, i have no idea what you
>> >> > mean you simply feed it two times if you want decimals, and carry over
>> >> > a 1 if to the second add if needed. There is no extra penalty in time
>> >> > for that. The decimals Points is handled by the parser.
>> >> >
>> >> > It permit anybase, but you have to format your number into that base
>> >> > Before feeding the function, try base two.
>> >> 
>> >> The code you posted does not permit any base.
>> >
>> > Not true, here i changed base same code, different number format.
>> 
>> Yes, true.  Here's a test case for you:
>> 
>>   base=9007199254740992;
>>   var arrOne = [base-1];
>>   var arrTwo = [2];
>> 
>> <snip>
>> -- 
>> Ben.
>
> You are oncfused Ben or trolling i know you understand that if the
> array is reversed also any output more than one digit has to be
> reversed.
>
> See example below. **WORK JUST FINE***
> base=900719925474091;
>
> var arrOne = [900719925474092];
> var arrTwo = [99999999999999];

This is not the test case I gave.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27798

Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 21:03:40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> 
> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> 
> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 17:01:39 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Feel free try to make it faster
> >> >> 
> >> >> Optimising bad code is not an appealing project.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The correct plan is to re-write it as a proper function and, what's
> >> >> more, make it a function that operates on some big number object type.
> >> >> 
> >> >> > but still keep it general "anybase".
> >> >> 
> >> >> It does not seem to permit any base.  You claimed to be allowing
> >> >> arbitrary precision numbers as the base, but the code assumes that the
> >> >> base is an ECMAScript Number value.
> >> >> 
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> -- 
> >> >> Ben.
> >> 
> >> Is there any chance that I can persuade you to follow Usenet conventions
> >> and (1) snip signatures; (2) reply in-line to the points being made?
> >> 
> >> > Actually it is infinite precision arithmetic, i have no idea what you
> >> > mean you simply feed it two times if you want decimals, and carry over
> >> > a 1 if to the second add if needed. There is no extra penalty in time
> >> > for that. The decimals Points is handled by the parser.
> >> >
> >> > It permit anybase, but you have to format your number into that base
> >> > Before feeding the function, try base two.
> >> 
> >> The code you posted does not permit any base.
> >
> > Not true, here i changed base same code, different number format.
> 
> Yes, true.  Here's a test case for you:
> 
>   base=9007199254740992;
>   var arrOne = [base-1];
>   var arrTwo = [2];

You are very confused why do you think it is wrong? 
1,1
Timing = 4 ms

Think again ..........90+2 would be 1,0 comes out like this.

0,1
Timing = 4 ms

base=900719925474092;
var arrOne = [900719925474090];
var arrTwo = [2];

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27799

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:

> Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 21:03:40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 17:01:39 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > Feel free try to make it faster
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Optimising bad code is not an appealing project.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> The correct plan is to re-write it as a proper function and, what's
>> >> >> more, make it a function that operates on some big number object type.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > but still keep it general "anybase".
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> It does not seem to permit any base.  You claimed to be allowing
>> >> >> arbitrary precision numbers as the base, but the code assumes that the
>> >> >> base is an ECMAScript Number value.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> -- 
>> >> >> Ben.
>> >> 
>> >> Is there any chance that I can persuade you to follow Usenet conventions
>> >> and (1) snip signatures; (2) reply in-line to the points being made?
>> >> 
>> >> > Actually it is infinite precision arithmetic, i have no idea what you
>> >> > mean you simply feed it two times if you want decimals, and carry over
>> >> > a 1 if to the second add if needed. There is no extra penalty in time
>> >> > for that. The decimals Points is handled by the parser.
>> >> >
>> >> > It permit anybase, but you have to format your number into that base
>> >> > Before feeding the function, try base two.
>> >> 
>> >> The code you posted does not permit any base.
>> >
>> > Not true, here i changed base same code, different number format.
>> 
>> Yes, true.  Here's a test case for you:
>> 
>>   base=9007199254740992;
>>   var arrOne = [base-1];
>>   var arrTwo = [2];
>
> You are very confused why do you think it is wrong? 
> 1,1
> Timing = 4 ms

I get [0,1] using two command-line implementations and three browsers.

> Think again ..........90+2 would be 1,0 comes out like this.
>
> 0,1
> Timing = 4 ms
>
> base=900719925474092;
> var arrOne = [900719925474090];
> var arrTwo = [2];

What's this got to do with my example?  Did you actually try my test
case?

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27803

Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 22:40:50 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> 
> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 21:03:40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> 
> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 17:01:39 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > Feel free try to make it faster
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Optimising bad code is not an appealing project.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> The correct plan is to re-write it as a proper function and, what's
> >> >> >> more, make it a function that operates on some big number object type.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > but still keep it general "anybase".
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> It does not seem to permit any base.  You claimed to be allowing
> >> >> >> arbitrary precision numbers as the base, but the code assumes that the
> >> >> >> base is an ECMAScript Number value.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> -- 
> >> >> >> Ben.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Is there any chance that I can persuade you to follow Usenet conventions
> >> >> and (1) snip signatures; (2) reply in-line to the points being made?
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Actually it is infinite precision arithmetic, i have no idea what you
> >> >> > mean you simply feed it two times if you want decimals, and carry over
> >> >> > a 1 if to the second add if needed. There is no extra penalty in time
> >> >> > for that. The decimals Points is handled by the parser.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It permit anybase, but you have to format your number into that base
> >> >> > Before feeding the function, try base two.
> >> >> 
> >> >> The code you posted does not permit any base.
> >> >
> >> > Not true, here i changed base same code, different number format.
> >> 
> >> Yes, true.  Here's a test case for you:
> >> 
> >>   base=9007199254740992;
> >>   var arrOne = [base-1];
> >>   var arrTwo = [2];
> >
> > You are very confused why do you think it is wrong? 
> > 1,1
> > Timing = 4 ms
> 
> I get [0,1] using two command-line implementations and three browsers.
> 
> > Think again ..........90+2 would be 1,0 comes out like this.
> >
> > 0,1
> > Timing = 4 ms
> >
> > base=900719925474092;
> > var arrOne = [900719925474090];
> > var arrTwo = [2];
> 
> What's this got to do with my example?  Did you actually try my test
> case?
> 
> -- 
> Ben.

Yes i did and i got 1,1 in any brwoser.
For your example, except you do apparently wrong when defining arrOne base-1.
Try arrOne = [9007199254740991]    The error is not in the function...
So apparently you are doing a nono...
> >>   base=9007199254740992;
> >>   var arrOne = [base-1];
> >>   var arrTwo = [2];

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27805

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:

> Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 22:40:50 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 21:03:40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
<snip>
>> >> >> > It permit anybase, but you have to format your number into that base
>> >> >> > Before feeding the function, try base two.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> The code you posted does not permit any base.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not true, here i changed base same code, different number format.
>> >> 
>> >> Yes, true.  Here's a test case for you:
>> >> 
>> >>   base=9007199254740992;
>> >>   var arrOne = [base-1];
>> >>   var arrTwo = [2];
<snip>
> Yes i did and i got 1,1 in any brwoser.

I'm having a hard time believing you.  Partly because you've posted two
examples that *look* similar but are, in fact, different (so maybe you
have a typo somewhere in your test), partly because I've just tried
another two implementations and I can't get anything but [0,1] in any of
them, but mostly because I know how ECMAScript Numbers are defined so I
know how these numbers get processed by your function.

> For your example, except you do apparently wrong when defining arrOne base-1.
> Try arrOne = [9007199254740991]

Yes, I did that.  Two command-line implementations and (now) five
browsers all gave the same incorrect result.  Put your test case
(i.e. for base = 9007199254740992, arrOne = [9007199254740991] and
arrTwo = [2]) on a public page and I'll try it with the browsers I have.

> The error is not in the function...
> So apparently you are doing a nono...

How well does the code work with base 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?  What about base 2^1024?

This test case aside, your code does not permit the use of any base.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27806

Den fredag 22 maj 2015 kl. 01:10:16 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> 
> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 22:40:50 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> 
> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 21:03:40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> <snip>
> >> >> >> > It permit anybase, but you have to format your number into that base
> >> >> >> > Before feeding the function, try base two.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> The code you posted does not permit any base.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Not true, here i changed base same code, different number format.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Yes, true.  Here's a test case for you:
> >> >> 
> >> >>   base=9007199254740992;
> >> >>   var arrOne = [base-1];
> >> >>   var arrTwo = [2];
> <snip>
> > Yes i did and i got 1,1 in any brwoser.
> 
> I'm having a hard time believing you.  Partly because you've posted two
> examples that *look* similar but are, in fact, different (so maybe you
> have a typo somewhere in your test), partly because I've just tried
> another two implementations and I can't get anything but [0,1] in any of
> them, but mostly because I know how ECMAScript Numbers are defined so I
> know how these numbers get processed by your function.
> 
> > For your example, except you do apparently wrong when defining arrOne base-1.
> > Try arrOne = [9007199254740991]
> 
> Yes, I did that.  Two command-line implementations and (now) five
> browsers all gave the same incorrect result.  Put your test case
> (i.e. for base = 9007199254740992, arrOne = [9007199254740991] and
> arrTwo = [2]) on a public page and I'll try it with the browsers I have.
> 
> > The error is not in the function...
> > So apparently you are doing a nono...
> 
> How well does the code work with base 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
> 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?  What about base 2^1024?
> 
> This test case aside, your code does not permit the use of any base.
> 
> -- 
> Ben.

Iexplorer, firefox and Chrome all give the correct answer 1,1

http://jt.node365.se/add.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27811

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:

> Den fredag 22 maj 2015 kl. 01:10:16 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 22:40:50 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 21:03:40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> <snip>
>> >> >> >> > It permit anybase, but you have to format your number into that base
>> >> >> >> > Before feeding the function, try base two.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> The code you posted does not permit any base.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Not true, here i changed base same code, different number format.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Yes, true.  Here's a test case for you:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >>   base=9007199254740992;
>> >> >>   var arrOne = [base-1];
>> >> >>   var arrTwo = [2];
>> <snip>
>> > Yes i did and i got 1,1 in any brwoser.
>> 
>> I'm having a hard time believing you.  Partly because you've posted two
>> examples that *look* similar but are, in fact, different (so maybe you
>> have a typo somewhere in your test), partly because I've just tried
>> another two implementations and I can't get anything but [0,1] in any of
>> them, but mostly because I know how ECMAScript Numbers are defined so I
>> know how these numbers get processed by your function.
>> 
>> > For your example, except you do apparently wrong when defining
>> > arrOne base-1.  Try arrOne = [9007199254740991]
>> 
>> Yes, I did that.  Two command-line implementations and (now) five
>> browsers all gave the same incorrect result.  Put your test case
>> (i.e. for base = 9007199254740992, arrOne = [9007199254740991] and
>> arrTwo = [2]) on a public page and I'll try it with the browsers I have.
<snip>

> Iexplorer, firefox and Chrome all give the correct answer 1,1

Yes, of course.  That's not the test case I gave you.

> http://jt.node365.se/add.html

I was right not to believe you and I am not 100% sure it was a genuine
mistake.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27813

Den fredag 22 maj 2015 kl. 11:45:06 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> 
> > Den fredag 22 maj 2015 kl. 01:10:16 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> 
> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 22:40:50 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 21:03:40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> >> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> >> > It permit anybase, but you have to format your number into that base
> >> >> >> >> > Before feeding the function, try base two.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> The code you posted does not permit any base.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Not true, here i changed base same code, different number format.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Yes, true.  Here's a test case for you:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >>   base=9007199254740992;
> >> >> >>   var arrOne = [base-1];
> >> >> >>   var arrTwo = [2];
> >> <snip>
> >> > Yes i did and i got 1,1 in any brwoser.
> >> 
> >> I'm having a hard time believing you.  Partly because you've posted two
> >> examples that *look* similar but are, in fact, different (so maybe you
> >> have a typo somewhere in your test), partly because I've just tried
> >> another two implementations and I can't get anything but [0,1] in any of
> >> them, but mostly because I know how ECMAScript Numbers are defined so I
> >> know how these numbers get processed by your function.
> >> 
> >> > For your example, except you do apparently wrong when defining
> >> > arrOne base-1.  Try arrOne = [9007199254740991]
> >> 
> >> Yes, I did that.  Two command-line implementations and (now) five
> >> browsers all gave the same incorrect result.  Put your test case
> >> (i.e. for base = 9007199254740992, arrOne = [9007199254740991] and
> >> arrTwo = [2]) on a public page and I'll try it with the browsers I have.
> <snip>
> 
> > Iexplorer, firefox and Chrome all give the correct answer 1,1
> 
> Yes, of course.  That's not the test case I gave you.
> 
> > http://jt.node365.se/add.html
> 
> I was right not to believe you and I am not 100% sure it was a genuine
> mistake.
> 
> -- 
> Ben.

What to you mean do you suggest that, my function responsible for base-1 in your definition of the array? That must be javascript doing something weird not the function or?  I do not think i understand what you mean, please clarify?

If it bugs out on base - 1 but not on var arrOne = [900719925474091]; it certainly can not be because of the function?

base=900719925474092;

var arrOne = [900719925474091]; //Is different from base-1?
var arrTwo = [2];

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27814

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:

> Den fredag 22 maj 2015 kl. 11:45:06 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>> > Den fredag 22 maj 2015 kl. 01:10:16 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> 
>> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 22:40:50 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 21:03:40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> >> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> <snip>
>> >> >> >> >> > It permit anybase, but you have to format your number
>> >> >> >> >> > into that base
>> >> >> >> >> > Before feeding the function, try base two.
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> The code you posted does not permit any base.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Not true, here i changed base same code, different number format.
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Yes, true.  Here's a test case for you:
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >>   base=9007199254740992;
>> >> >> >>   var arrOne = [base-1];
>> >> >> >>   var arrTwo = [2];
>> >> <snip>
>> >> > Yes i did and i got 1,1 in any brwoser.
>> >> 
>> >> I'm having a hard time believing you.  Partly because you've posted two
>> >> examples that *look* similar but are, in fact, different (so maybe you
>> >> have a typo somewhere in your test), partly because I've just tried
>> >> another two implementations and I can't get anything but [0,1] in any of
>> >> them, but mostly because I know how ECMAScript Numbers are defined so I
>> >> know how these numbers get processed by your function.
>> >> 
>> >> > For your example, except you do apparently wrong when defining
>> >> > arrOne base-1.  Try arrOne = [9007199254740991]
>> >> 
>> >> Yes, I did that.  Two command-line implementations and (now) five
>> >> browsers all gave the same incorrect result.  Put your test case
>> >> (i.e. for base = 9007199254740992, arrOne = [9007199254740991] and
>> >> arrTwo = [2]) on a public page and I'll try it with the browsers I have.
>> <snip>
>> 
>> > Iexplorer, firefox and Chrome all give the correct answer 1,1
>> 
>> Yes, of course.  That's not the test case I gave you.
>> 
>> > http://jt.node365.se/add.html
>> 
>> I was right not to believe you and I am not 100% sure it was a genuine
>> mistake.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ben.
>
> What to you mean do you suggest that, my function responsible for
> base-1 in your definition of the array? That must be javascript doing
> something weird not the function or?  I do not think i understand what
> you mean, please clarify?

I posted an example base that does not work.  You copied it incorrectly
and claimed my example was wrong, when the error was in your copying.

> If it bugs out on base - 1 but not on var arrOne = [900719925474091];
> it certainly can not be because of the function?
>
> base=900719925474092;

That was not the base I gave you.  I wrote: base=9007199254740992.

> var arrOne = [900719925474091]; //Is different from base-1?

I suggested 9007199254740991 and you actually said that you have tried
that number but the code posted today used this other number.

> var arrTwo = [2];

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27815

Den fredag 22 maj 2015 kl. 12:25:54 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> 
> > Den fredag 22 maj 2015 kl. 11:45:06 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> 
> >> > Den fredag 22 maj 2015 kl. 01:10:16 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 22:40:50 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 21:03:40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> >> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
> >> >> >> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> >> >> > It permit anybase, but you have to format your number
> >> >> >> >> >> > into that base
> >> >> >> >> >> > Before feeding the function, try base two.
> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> The code you posted does not permit any base.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Not true, here i changed base same code, different number format.
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> Yes, true.  Here's a test case for you:
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >>   base=9007199254740992;
> >> >> >> >>   var arrOne = [base-1];
> >> >> >> >>   var arrTwo = [2];
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> > Yes i did and i got 1,1 in any brwoser.
> >> >> 
> >> >> I'm having a hard time believing you.  Partly because you've posted two
> >> >> examples that *look* similar but are, in fact, different (so maybe you
> >> >> have a typo somewhere in your test), partly because I've just tried
> >> >> another two implementations and I can't get anything but [0,1] in any of
> >> >> them, but mostly because I know how ECMAScript Numbers are defined so I
> >> >> know how these numbers get processed by your function.
> >> >> 
> >> >> > For your example, except you do apparently wrong when defining
> >> >> > arrOne base-1.  Try arrOne = [9007199254740991]
> >> >> 
> >> >> Yes, I did that.  Two command-line implementations and (now) five
> >> >> browsers all gave the same incorrect result.  Put your test case
> >> >> (i.e. for base = 9007199254740992, arrOne = [9007199254740991] and
> >> >> arrTwo = [2]) on a public page and I'll try it with the browsers I have.
> >> <snip>
> >> 
> >> > Iexplorer, firefox and Chrome all give the correct answer 1,1
> >> 
> >> Yes, of course.  That's not the test case I gave you.
> >> 
> >> > http://jt.node365.se/add.html
> >> 
> >> I was right not to believe you and I am not 100% sure it was a genuine
> >> mistake.
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Ben.
> >
> > What to you mean do you suggest that, my function responsible for
> > base-1 in your definition of the array? That must be javascript doing
> > something weird not the function or?  I do not think i understand what
> > you mean, please clarify?
> 
> I posted an example base that does not work.  You copied it incorrectly
> and claimed my example was wrong, when the error was in your copying.
> 
> > If it bugs out on base - 1 but not on var arrOne = [900719925474091];
> > it certainly can not be because of the function?
> >
> > base=900719925474092;
> 
> That was not the base I gave you.  I wrote: base=9007199254740992.
> 
> > var arrOne = [900719925474091]; //Is different from base-1?
> 
> I suggested 9007199254740991 and you actually said that you have tried
> that number but the code posted today used this other number.
> 
> > var arrTwo = [2];
> 
> -- 
> Ben.

Sorry you are absolutely correct i missed that, but  it is more a result of limitations in javascript integer than the add algorithm.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27818

jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
<snip>
>> >> >> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 21:03:40 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> >> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> > Den torsdag 21 maj 2015 kl. 18:04:22 UTC+2 skrev Ben Bacarisse:
>> >> >> >> >> >> jonas.thornvall@gmail.com writes:
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> >> >> >> > It permit anybase,
<snip>
>> >> >> >> >> >> The code you posted does not permit any base.
<snip>
>> >> >> >> >> Here's a test case for you:
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >>   base=9007199254740992;
>> >> >> >> >>   var arrOne = [base-1];
>> >> >> >> >>   var arrTwo = [2];
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> > Yes i did and i got 1,1 in any brwoser.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I'm having a hard time believing you.
<snip>
> Sorry you are absolutely correct i missed that, but it is more a
> result of limitations in javascript integer than the add algorithm.

It's why your statement about the function -- that "it permit any base"
-- is wrong.  ECMAScript numbers are limited, and you should really
understand these limitations when writing arithmetic functions (and also
before engaging in long arguments about why your obviously false claims
are correct).

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#27825

On Fri, 22 May 2015 11:25:48 +0100, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

> I posted an example base that does not work.  You copied it incorrectly
> and claimed my example was wrong, when the error was in your copying.

You seem to be (imho rather generously) assuming that it was an error, 
rather than a deliberate change.

>> If it bugs out on base - 1 but not on var arrOne = [900719925474091];
>> it certainly can not be because of the function?

Jonas' faked value: base=900719925474092
Ben's value: ...... base=9007199254740992

-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web