Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #38935 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-10-13 13:46 -0700 |
| Last post | 2020-10-20 13:36 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 53 — 5 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript
Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-13 13:46 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-13 14:01 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-13 14:09 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-13 15:05 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-13 18:07 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-13 18:22 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-10-13 20:36 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-14 01:34 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-14 01:37 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-14 01:38 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-10-14 10:51 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-10-15 18:03 +0100
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-16 03:19 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-10-16 19:30 +0100
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-16 12:36 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-16 19:25 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" luserdroog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2020-10-14 10:32 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-14 02:32 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-14 02:40 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-14 05:05 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-14 05:16 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-10-15 18:03 +0100
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-15 13:05 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-15 14:58 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-10-16 19:14 +0100
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-16 19:23 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-10-17 11:05 +0200
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-17 03:07 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-10-17 14:47 +0200
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-17 05:59 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-10-17 15:21 +0200
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-10-17 15:09 +0100
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-17 11:11 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-19 01:52 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-10-19 13:37 +0200
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-19 05:08 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-19 05:11 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-19 05:52 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-10-19 19:15 +0200
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-19 11:01 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-10-20 15:30 +0200
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-20 07:26 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-10-21 00:01 +0200
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-20 18:19 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-10-21 13:01 +0200
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-21 15:07 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2020-10-22 01:21 +0200
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-20 07:31 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-10-19 18:04 +0100
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-19 10:47 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2020-10-19 19:33 +0100
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> - 2020-10-19 16:36 -0700
Re: Loop and move within boundary "interval logic for cursored list" Scott Sauyet <scott@sauyet.com> - 2020-10-20 13:36 -0700
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-14 05:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2096d7c-f1fa-425f-b908-cfbc8450e873o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38947 |
Den onsdag 14 oktober 2020 kl. 14:05:12 UTC+2 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: > Den onsdag 14 oktober 2020 kl. 05:36:57 UTC+2 skrev luserdroog: > > On Tuesday, October 13, 2020 at 8:22:59 PM UTC-5, Jonas Thörnvall wrote: > > > > > I think i can see what fuck it up "had to revert to simple solution without full listing" the index of movenumber and moveText.length is not same and that make it nearly impossible to position yourself without changing move forward and backward. > > > > > > The idiots who once decided that first element in an array is zero.... > > > They caused billions of bugs in thousands programming languages. > > > > In APL arrays were originally based on one. > > Then they made it configurable... and finally settled on mostly zero, > > but still configurable. > > > > Zero is common enough that it's probably best to get used to it. > > Further thoughts on indexes, it seem unavoidable that index zero must exist to position yourself before something start, it is questionable if one should allow it to hold a value though. So you can position yourself at index zero but as soon you start to push things in to array they will start at index one. > > The whole thing with start and end seem a pretty weird and lose concepts, is start before the first element or is start the first element. It seem we could have a list but not selected any of its element, so zero seem necessary in an array index??? > > But i do not think it "should" hold any data? In chess it seem pretty clear that you want to be able comeback to start condition when no moves done, and then naturally follow that first move must be index 1,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-15 18:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0r4gofhfdtp9knal92jucab59ngbt11auv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #38940 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 18:22:51 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote: <snip> >The idiots who once decided that first element in an array is zero.... >They caused billions of bugs in thousands programming languages. When you were in school they taught you how to use a ruler. If you look at a ruler now that you are older you will see that the lowest cm is marked '0'. You know that something half a cm long will be recorded as '0.5' cm, not '1.6' cm. Why aren't you complaining that the schools have got it all wrong? As for arrays, the size tells you where to put the next entry when you are adding to a list. And bugs are written by programmers who can't be bothered to remember what they are doing. John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-15 13:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <615409ff-69df-4838-b93e-496e74a489bao@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38956 |
Den torsdag 15 oktober 2020 kl. 19:03:28 UTC+2 skrev John G Harris: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 18:22:51 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Thörnvall > <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >The idiots who once decided that first element in an array is zero.... > >They caused billions of bugs in thousands programming languages. > > When you were in school they taught you how to use a ruler. If you > look at a ruler now that you are older you will see that the lowest cm > is marked '0'. You know that something half a cm long will be recorded > as '0.5' cm, not '1.6' cm. > > Why aren't you complaining that the schools have got it all wrong? > > As for arrays, the size tells you where to put the next entry when you > are adding to a list. And bugs are written by programmers who can't be > bothered to remember what they are doing. > > John Well to be honest the ruler actually a pretty new invention, for sure useful in construction not so much in math, sums of fractions was a far superior system for calculating with no rounding errors propagating thru your calculations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-15 14:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1503880d-f715-4b79-b85a-188d4780d310o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38957 |
Den torsdag 15 oktober 2020 kl. 22:06:06 UTC+2 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: > Den torsdag 15 oktober 2020 kl. 19:03:28 UTC+2 skrev John G Harris: > > On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 18:22:51 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Thörnvall > > <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > >The idiots who once decided that first element in an array is zero.... > > >They caused billions of bugs in thousands programming languages. > > > > When you were in school they taught you how to use a ruler. If you > > look at a ruler now that you are older you will see that the lowest cm > > is marked '0'. You know that something half a cm long will be recorded > > as '0.5' cm, not '1.6' cm. > > > > Why aren't you complaining that the schools have got it all wrong? > > > > As for arrays, the size tells you where to put the next entry when you > > are adding to a list. And bugs are written by programmers who can't be > > bothered to remember what they are doing. > > > > John > > Well to be honest the ruler actually a pretty new invention, for sure useful in construction not so much in math, sums of fractions was a far superior system for calculating with no rounding errors propagating thru your calculations. What i say is that the reals is an invention, and not a very accurate one at least not in base 10.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-16 19:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8kojof934q5hr04o3as57716b1gvq68his@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #38957 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:05:57 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote: <snip> > sums of fractions was a far superior system for calculating with > no rounding errors propagating thru your calculations. When you use fractions the diagonal of a 1 cm square doesn't have a length. Nor do you have e and pi : goodbye electronics calculations! John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-16 19:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d8d9032b-a205-41bd-acca-6022c34d3065o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38960 |
Den fredag 16 oktober 2020 kl. 20:14:53 UTC+2 skrev John G Harris: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:05:57 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Thörnvall > <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > > sums of fractions was a far superior system for calculating with > > no rounding errors propagating thru your calculations. > > When you use fractions the diagonal of a 1 cm square doesn't have a > length. Of course it have a length given and calculated as a fraction > > Nor do you have e and pi : goodbye electronics calculations! Pi and e are just symbolical representations of calculations leading to approximation of ratios. The calculation would still be there and so would the symbols. > John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-17 11:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <XnsAC5970D095488eejj99@194.109.6.166> |
| In reply to | #38964 |
=?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_Th=C3=B6rnvall?= <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 17 Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: > Den fredag 16 oktober 2020 kl. 20:14:53 UTC+2 skrev John G Harris: >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:05:57 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Thörnvall >> <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> > sums of fractions was a far superior system for calculating with >> > no rounding errors propagating thru your calculations. >> >> When you use fractions the diagonal of a 1 cm square doesn't have a >> length. > Of course it have a length given and calculated as a fraction Wrong, it cannot be expressed as a fraction. >> >> Nor do you have e and pi : goodbye electronics calculations! > > Pi and e are just symbolical representations of calculations leading to > approximation of ratios. The calculation would still be there and so > would the symbols. Wrong, they cannot be expressed as a fraction and wrong, they are not representations of calculations. -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-17 03:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <64be4c22-3a4d-4c59-9acb-e3b285b38029o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38969 |
Den lördag 17 oktober 2020 kl. 11:06:12 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.: > =?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_Th=C3=B6rnvall?= <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 17 > Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: > > > Den fredag 16 oktober 2020 kl. 20:14:53 UTC+2 skrev John G Harris: > >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:05:57 -0700 (PDT), Jonas Thörnvall > >> <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> <snip> > >> > sums of fractions was a far superior system for calculating with > >> > no rounding errors propagating thru your calculations. > >> > >> When you use fractions the diagonal of a 1 cm square doesn't have a > >> length. > > Of course it have a length given and calculated as a fraction > > Wrong, it cannot be expressed as a fraction. > > >> > >> Nor do you have e and pi : goodbye electronics calculations! > > > > Pi and e are just symbolical representations of calculations leading to > > approximation of ratios. The calculation would still be there and so > > would the symbols. > > Wrong, they cannot be expressed as a fraction > and > wrong, they are not representations of calculations. Pi and e are continued calculations ratios they are not expressible in other way then symbolic or approximations. The approximations will be ***alot*** better in calculations using sums of fractions. > > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-17 14:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <XnsAC59966A57169eejj99@194.109.6.166> |
| In reply to | #38970 |
=?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_Th=C3=B6rnvall?= <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 17 Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: >> Wrong, they cannot be expressed as a fraction >> and >> wrong, they are not representations of calculations. > > Pi and e are continued calculations ratios they are not expressible in > other way then symbolic or approximations. The approximations will be > ***alot*** better in calculations using sums of fractions. Wrong again, Pi and e are mathematical constants, not calculations. -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-17 05:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e67d4899-4d0c-400f-aab6-b5fe4bc67ec9o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38971 |
Den lördag 17 oktober 2020 kl. 14:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.: > =?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_Th=C3=B6rnvall?= <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 17 > Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: > > >> Wrong, they cannot be expressed as a fraction > >> and > >> wrong, they are not representations of calculations. > > > > Pi and e are continued calculations ratios they are not expressible in > > other way then symbolic or approximations. The approximations will be > > ***alot*** better in calculations using sums of fractions. > > > Wrong again, Pi and e are mathematical constants, not calculations. > > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress) Yes they are "defined" as such Pi and e, but if you want to use them in calculations they are either "ratios" and use a fixed decimal expansion picked from some precalculated table.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-17 15:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <XnsAC599C478D3A1eejj99@194.109.6.166> |
| In reply to | #38972 |
=?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_Th=C3=B6rnvall?= <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 17 Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: > Den lördag 17 oktober 2020 kl. 14:47:20 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.: >> =?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_Th=C3=B6rnvall?= <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrot > e on 17 >> Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: >> >> >> Wrong, they cannot be expressed as a fraction >> >> and >> >> wrong, they are not representations of calculations. >> > >> > Pi and e are continued calculations ratios they are not expressible >> > in other way then symbolic or approximations. The approximations will >> > be ***alot*** better in calculations using sums of fractions. >> >> >> Wrong again, Pi and e are mathematical constants, not calculations. > > Yes they are "defined" as such Pi and e, but if you want to use them Usually "are" is consistent with a definition, irrespective of what you want ... > incalculations they are either "ratios" and use a fixed decimal expansion > picked from some precalculated table. ... to use something for. -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John G Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-17 15:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iiulofds5lnst4okpqocg08k4ekqj0moge@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #38971 |
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 14:47:11 +0200, "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote: >=?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_Th=C3=B6rnvall?= <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 17 >Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: > >>> Wrong, they cannot be expressed as a fraction >>> and >>> wrong, they are not representations of calculations. >> >> Pi and e are continued calculations ratios they are not expressible in >> other way then symbolic or approximations. The approximations will be >> ***alot*** better in calculations using sums of fractions. > > >Wrong again, Pi and e are mathematical constants, not calculations. Jonas want approximate fractions so let's give him one for root 2 : 141421356237309504880168872420969807856967187537694 / 10^50 Is this accurate enough for him do you think? John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-17 11:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6218586-5019-403c-9018-e7df5460cd13o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38975 |
Den lördag 17 oktober 2020 kl. 16:09:28 UTC+2 skrev John G Harris: > On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 14:47:11 +0200, "Evertjan." > <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote: > > >=?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_Th=C3=B6rnvall?= <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 17 > >Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: > > > >>> Wrong, they cannot be expressed as a fraction > >>> and > >>> wrong, they are not representations of calculations. > >> > >> Pi and e are continued calculations ratios they are not expressible in > >> other way then symbolic or approximations. The approximations will be > >> ***alot*** better in calculations using sums of fractions. > > > > > >Wrong again, Pi and e are mathematical constants, not calculations. > > Jonas want approximate fractions so let's give him one for root 2 : > > 141421356237309504880168872420969807856967187537694 / 10^50 > > Is this accurate enough for him do you think? > > John I just saying i probably could do alot better and more accurate calculations using continued fractions then anyone of you, oh not probably surely would be the correct term. But right now i am sorry bit occupied with the chess. https://jonasth.github.io/Fibonacci/fibonacci15.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-19 01:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df40f6b6-a966-4e7a-9304-da0eee880c40o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38977 |
Den lördag 17 oktober 2020 kl. 20:11:49 UTC+2 skrev Jonas Thörnvall: > Den lördag 17 oktober 2020 kl. 16:09:28 UTC+2 skrev John G Harris: > > On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 14:47:11 +0200, "Evertjan." > > <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote: > > > > >=?UTF-8?Q?Jonas_Th=C3=B6rnvall?= <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 17 > > >Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: > > > > > >>> Wrong, they cannot be expressed as a fraction > > >>> and > > >>> wrong, they are not representations of calculations. > > >> > > >> Pi and e are continued calculations ratios they are not expressible in > > >> other way then symbolic or approximations. The approximations will be > > >> ***alot*** better in calculations using sums of fractions. > > > > > > > > >Wrong again, Pi and e are mathematical constants, not calculations. > > > > Jonas want approximate fractions so let's give him one for root 2 : > > > > 141421356237309504880168872420969807856967187537694 / 10^50 > > > > Is this accurate enough for him do you think? > > > > John > > I just saying i probably could do alot better and more accurate calculations using continued fractions then anyone of you, oh not probably surely would be the correct term. But right now i am sorry bit occupied with the chess. > > https://jonasth.github.io/Fibonacci/fibonacci15.html Oh just realised i do it better then Wolfram alpha it give approximation.... For some reason Wolfram Alpha can not handle binaries of the length my little script produce, well maybe the do their calculation on main frame or distributed. How come Wolfram have to approximate something that i can calculate exact... Within a second or two... I'm just a little better doing simple arithmetic in anybase, i just a little more exact doing calculations in anybase. In fact my methods do not need any approximations, always exact on spot given any values because i "have/and would calculate any decimals into continued fractions".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-19 13:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <XnsAC5B8A8565B9Eeejj99@194.109.6.166> |
| In reply to | #38998 |
<jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 19 Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: > In fact my methods do not need any approximations, always exact on spot > given any values because i "have/and would calculate any decimals into > continued fractions". So would your always exact on spot continued fractions do for Pi? -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-19 05:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2e476bd-1f15-4700-9c93-67fc066d8322o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38999 |
Den måndag 19 oktober 2020 kl. 14:00:10 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.: > <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 19 Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: > > > In fact my methods do not need any approximations, always exact on spot > > given any values because i "have/and would calculate any decimals into > > continued fractions". > > So would your always exact on spot continued fractions do for Pi? > > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress) Yeah what accuracy do you desire.... That is the accuracy you get after calculation done, it is not lossy.... Like decimals, where the calculation just get worse.... The more terms you add to the calculation.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-19 05:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f607005e-7493-4e6c-b12f-f9030f5e9c52o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38999 |
Den måndag 19 oktober 2020 kl. 14:00:10 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.: > <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 19 Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: > > > In fact my methods do not need any approximations, always exact on spot > > given any values because i "have/and would calculate any decimals into > > continued fractions". > > So would your always exact on spot continued fractions do for Pi? > > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress) Even overly confused people should understand that the accuarcy of any calculation never can get better then the "estimation/approximation" you provide. But the calculation will not degrade the way it does using a base...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-19 05:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e225a4e5-66d3-42fe-b44d-d77bc224e609o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #38999 |
Den måndag 19 oktober 2020 kl. 14:00:10 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.: > <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 19 Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: > > > In fact my methods do not need any approximations, always exact on spot > > given any values because i "have/and would calculate any decimals into > > continued fractions". > > So would your always exact on spot continued fractions do for Pi? > > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress) If you consider it sloppy writing out the exact number i could provide the shortest polynomial representing the exact value of 100000th fibonacci. Maybe you could learn something howto do compression effectively.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-19 19:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <XnsAC5BC3D2FC530eejj99@194.109.6.166> |
| In reply to | #39002 |
<jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 19 Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: >> So would your always exact on spot continued fractions do for Pi? > > If you consider it sloppy writing out the exact number i could provide > the shortest polynomial representing the exact value of 100000th > fibonacci. You seem to fail understanding the concept of "exact" in mathematics. -- Evertjan. The Netherlands. (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonas Thörnvall <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-10-19 11:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f021ca3-cafe-4ddb-8bdf-ef92d11b4a56o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #39004 |
Den måndag 19 oktober 2020 kl. 19:15:10 UTC+2 skrev Evertjan.: > <jonas.thornvall@gmail.com> wrote on 19 Oct 2020 in comp.lang.javascript: > > >> So would your always exact on spot continued fractions do for Pi? > > > > If you consider it sloppy writing out the exact number i could provide > > the shortest polynomial representing the exact value of 100000th > > fibonacci. > > You seem to fail understanding the concept of "exact" in mathematics. > > -- > Evertjan. > The Netherlands. > (Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress) Sure i do it is an answer that is not an approximation, my arithmetic is exact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript
csiph-web