Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #10908 > unrolled thread
| Started by | syedanwarowais5@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-06-12 02:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2020-06-13 23:28 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 60 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.programming
are you interested in number theory AND programming syedanwarowais5@gmail.com - 2020-06-12 02:25 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2020-06-12 14:26 +0000
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syedanwarowais5@gmail.com - 2020-06-12 19:34 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-06-13 11:16 +0100
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syedanwarowais5@gmail.com - 2020-06-13 04:07 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-06-13 07:20 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-06-13 07:47 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-06-13 08:29 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-06-13 17:02 +0100
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syedanwarowais5@gmail.com - 2020-06-13 23:11 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syedanwarowais5@gmail.com - 2020-06-13 23:23 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-17 00:55 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2020-06-17 09:30 +0100
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-17 02:32 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2020-06-20 08:26 +0100
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-20 03:58 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2020-06-20 14:55 +0100
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-06-17 23:11 +0100
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> - 2020-06-20 04:44 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-06-20 06:27 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> - 2020-06-21 17:31 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-22 02:00 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> - 2020-06-22 05:34 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2020-06-22 14:05 +0000
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> - 2020-06-23 04:50 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-23 15:50 +0200
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2020-06-23 14:34 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> - 2020-06-24 01:39 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-24 15:48 +0200
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-06-24 13:52 +0100
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-24 16:00 +0200
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-06-24 17:03 +0100
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-24 20:32 +0200
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2020-06-24 14:19 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-06-26 06:24 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-26 16:28 +0200
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-06-26 06:11 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-22 09:39 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> - 2020-06-23 00:50 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-23 05:14 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> - 2020-06-24 02:39 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2020-06-25 20:48 +0100
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-26 08:48 +0200
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> - 2020-06-26 01:25 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-26 11:10 +0200
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-26 03:56 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-26 13:34 +0200
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Boris Dorestand <bdorestand@example.com> - 2020-06-27 11:22 -0300
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-27 17:50 +0200
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Boris Dorestand <bdorestand@example.com> - 2020-06-27 13:42 -0300
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> - 2020-07-04 18:44 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> - 2020-07-09 19:51 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2020-07-10 05:32 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> - 2020-07-10 09:03 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-06-26 06:02 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2020-06-26 01:58 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-26 11:14 +0200
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-06-26 13:10 -0400
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2020-06-26 06:12 -0700
Re: are you interested in number theory AND programming David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-06-13 23:28 +0200
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-21 17:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6d19d218-3a96-40da-aaf9-155882ed09b5o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10954 |
Do you regard the following question as an interesting one in number thoery:
What is the smallest integer that can be written as a sum of three fourth powers of integers in two different ways?
To my mind, the answer is not as yet known.
Suppose a computer program is written based on the following :
Let a^4+(c+d)^4+b^4=c^4+(a+b)^4+d^4
This implies
ab{(a+b)^2+ab}=cd{(c+d)^2+cd} ....(A)
Since finding solution sets to my earlier puzzle was "almost trivial",writing a computer program to find solution sets (are there an infinite number of them?)
to (A) can't be difficult for you.
I think we would have some interesting results in number theory which I can't find in the existing textbooks.
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALGEBRAIC EXPRESSION ON THE L H S OF (A) CONTAINS ONLY (ab)and(a+b)^2. Would this mean that the program that finds solution sets to (A) could be created by extrapolations on the program that finds solution sets of ab(a+b)=cd(c+d)?
I will put more of the "deeper maths" here before you once you respond to the above!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-22 02:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d267127-1d8e-487f-a26f-7e21a6e2e6a4o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10960 |
On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 7:31:54 AM UTC+7, syed owais wrote:
> Do you regard the following question as an interesting one in number thoery:
> What is the smallest integer that can be written as a sum of three fourth powers of integers in two different ways?
> To my mind, the answer is not as yet known.
Assuming, as usual, that we're restricted to positive powers,
surely the answer is 2673.
2673 = 6^4 + 6^4 + 3^4 = 7^4 + 4^4 + 2^4
6578 = 8^4 + 7^4 + 3^4 = 9^4 + 2^4 + 1^4
16562 = 10^4 + 9^4 + 1^4 = 11^4 + 6^4 + 5^4
28593 = 12^4 + 9^4 + 6^4 = 13^4 + 2^4 + 2^4
35378 = 12^4 + 11^4 + 1^4 = 13^4 + 9^4 + 4^4
etc.
Four ways?
5978882
= 43^4 + 40^4 + 3^4
= 45^4 + 37^4 + 8^4
= 47^4 + 32^4 + 15^4
= 48^4 + 25^4 + 23^4
Six ways?
292965218
= 111^4 + 109^4 + 2^4
= 119^4 + 98^4 + 21^4
= 121^4 + 94^4 + 27^4
= 123^4 + 89^4 + 34^4
= 126^4 + 77^4 + 49^4
= 127^4 + 66^4 + 61^4
The 'Six ways' answer is also the answer to the 'Five ways' question!
And two other six-way answers -- 1010431058 and 1110995522 -- are found
before we get to the five-without-six, 1234349298.
Any special reason for this?
1234349298
= 161^4 + 154^4 + 7^4
= 169^4 + 143^4 + 26^4
= 179^4 + 118^4 + 61^4
= 181^4 + 107^4 + 74^4
= 182^4 + 91^4 + 91^4
By the way, a (very vaguely) related problem in number theory
is Catalan's Conjecture about consecutive powers. It was first
proved in the 21st century, but a special case was proved in the
14th century, as I note here:
https://fabpedigree.com/james/gmat200.htm#Gerson
James Dow Allen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-22 05:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <599aa968-958c-4f03-868a-9ffd066aba4co@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10961 |
I have to say "thank you" because this certainly takes forward my (original) explorations in number theory,which cannot possibly be done without computer programming. I hope that the algebraic "trick" I have devised which reduces the problem(s) to easier ones interests you as a computer programmer. I believe mathematicians and programmers can do fruitful work together if BOTH PLAY THEIR ROLES WELL. Of course,the mathematician and the programmer could be the same person! Finding the "necessary conditions"(and I mean in a general sense in any mathematical problem) is ,of course,a creative endeavour in mathematics. But surely the following question piques your curiosity as a programmer : How about extending the explorations done so far to finding solutions to a^5+b^5+c^5=d^5+e^5+f^5. Thanks again! My interest in (particularly original work) in mathematics is deep and permanent. I have several other projects which require programming... Or even creating software. More than a decade back, I did a collaboration with software writers on a project which I called OWAIS'S PUZZLES!It was quite satisfying! Syed Owais
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | root <NoEMail@home.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-22 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rcqdri$m2u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10962 |
syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> wrote: > > > My interest in (particularly original work) in mathematics is deep and >permanent. I have several other projects which require programming... Or even >creating software. > More than a decade back, I did a collaboration with >software writers on a project which I called OWAIS'S PUZZLES!It was quite >satisfying! Why not spend a little time learning to program yourself? It's not very hard. You can start by asking everyone who responds to include their program solution. Study the programs, experiment with changing them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-23 04:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5480a2e3-4494-402c-95ff-38ae6239cadfo@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10963 |
well, I am learning fortran,which I believe is suitable for engineers and scientists. I will work in mathematica software once I develop some proficiency with fortran. This is how I have planned it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-23 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rct1bc$599$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10969 |
On 23/06/2020 13:50, syed owais wrote: > well, I am learning fortran,which I believe is suitable for engineers and scientists. Fortran would be a good choice here - if it were still 1970. > I will work in mathematica software once I develop some proficiency with fortran. > This is how I have planned it. > There is lots of mathematical software available. Some make it easy to write code, others do not. Some is geared towards numerical calculations (handling big matrices, efficient floating point calculations, etc.), some for symbolic work, some for number theory, and so on. Some is expensive, some is open source. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_software> There are only two languages I would recommend for starting programming with a view to doing mathematics (other than those built into specialised mathematical software). One is Haskell, the language Ben used. It is a functional programming language - a kind of programming that has a very mathematical style to it. The other is Python, which is a high-level general purpose programming language. That's the language I used in an early response to your post. That is the language that will get you results fastest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-23 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1f452d5-59a7-4e2b-b929-4b35636a6fado@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10971 |
Bump. To counter retards spamming.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-24 01:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eac1370a-36e0-43a4-95e5-6f2ab6a15b6fo@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10971 |
Thanks a lot for you guidance. There is a short story by Rushdie "Good advice is rarer than rubies " ! I hope the interest of the others (besides me) posting their blogs here will remain in what we are trying to build up here... Naturally it is somewhat open-ended.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-24 15:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rcvlk1$c8b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10979 |
On 24/06/2020 10:39, syed owais wrote: > Thanks a lot for you guidance. There is a short story by Rushdie "Good advice is rarer than rubies " ! > I hope the interest of the others (besides me) posting their blogs here will remain in what we are trying to build up here... Naturally it is somewhat open-ended. > Here's some more good advice... Get a proper Usenet client (Thunderbird is free and cross-platform, and a fine choice to start with). Get a proper Usenet server (news.eternal-september.org is free and popular). Stop using the broken Google Groups interface, except perhaps for searching old archives. You will find Usenet a better experience if you do. Learn to post correctly according to Usenet standards - quoting the post you are replying to, snipping as appropriate, keeping attributions in place, and formatting your line lengths correctly. This is what almost all other Usenet posters do in serious groups, and it makes threads and conversations much easier and more consistent. It is great to see new people in this group, and an interesting thread that has spawned posts from a variety of old lurkers. And I hope it will lead to more threads here by you or others. But it would be even better if you followed Usenet conventions. (I'm not blaming you here in any way - it's Google that is to blame for their "Groups" site.) David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-24 13:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <877dvwy6ak.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #10971 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 23/06/2020 13:50, syed owais wrote: >> well, I am learning fortran,which I believe is suitable for engineers >> and scientists. > > Fortran would be a good choice here - if it were still 1970. Fortran was a good choice when you wanted to leverage the vast (and expensive) libraries that were once Fortran-only. It's still a reasonable choice is you want to do fancy things with arrays because it fairly sophisticated array handling, but I would not choose it for number theory work then or now. >> I will work in mathematica software once I develop some proficiency >> with fortran. This is how I have planned it. I would want to avoid an expensive, proprietary language but you (the OP) may have reasons not to worry about that, or maybe the symbolic processing it offers make it a big win for you in other ways. > There is lots of mathematical software available. Some make it easy to > write code, others do not. Some is geared towards numerical > calculations (handling big matrices, efficient floating point > calculations, etc.), some for symbolic work, some for number theory, and > so on. Some is expensive, some is open source. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_software> > > There are only two languages I would recommend for starting programming > with a view to doing mathematics (other than those built into > specialised mathematical software). One is Haskell, the language Ben > used. It is a functional programming language - a kind of programming > that has a very mathematical style to it. The other is Python, which is > a high-level general purpose programming language. That's the language > I used in an early response to your post. That is the language that > will get you results fastest. Both have built-in "big num" support, and both have built-in rationals (well, I know Haskell does and I think Python does too) which are things I'd want to have for number theory. Prolog comes with big numbers and some sophisticated mechanisms for satisfying constraints, but it seems to be odd enough that many people find it hard to learn. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-24 16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rcvmap$q8n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10982 |
On 24/06/2020 14:52, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> On 23/06/2020 13:50, syed owais wrote: >>> well, I am learning fortran,which I believe is suitable for engineers >>> and scientists. >> >> Fortran would be a good choice here - if it were still 1970. > > Fortran was a good choice when you wanted to leverage the vast (and > expensive) libraries that were once Fortran-only. It's still a > reasonable choice is you want to do fancy things with arrays because it > fairly sophisticated array handling, but I would not choose it for > number theory work then or now. Python with numpy will do array work at close to the speed of Fortran - in fact, probably faster than most people's Fortran since the folks behind it have made use of SIMD, vector extensions, compiler extensions, and anything else available to get the fastest code. Of course getting top speed from any array processing takes time and effort to learn, regardless of the language. > >>> I will work in mathematica software once I develop some proficiency >>> with fortran. This is how I have planned it. > > I would want to avoid an expensive, proprietary language but you (the > OP) may have reasons not to worry about that, or maybe the symbolic > processing it offers make it a big win for you in other ways. > >> There is lots of mathematical software available. Some make it easy to >> write code, others do not. Some is geared towards numerical >> calculations (handling big matrices, efficient floating point >> calculations, etc.), some for symbolic work, some for number theory, and >> so on. Some is expensive, some is open source. >> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_software> >> >> There are only two languages I would recommend for starting programming >> with a view to doing mathematics (other than those built into >> specialised mathematical software). One is Haskell, the language Ben >> used. It is a functional programming language - a kind of programming >> that has a very mathematical style to it. The other is Python, which is >> a high-level general purpose programming language. That's the language >> I used in an early response to your post. That is the language that >> will get you results fastest. > > Both have built-in "big num" support, and both have built-in rationals > (well, I know Haskell does and I think Python does too) which are things > I'd want to have for number theory. > > Prolog comes with big numbers and some sophisticated mechanisms for > satisfying constraints, but it seems to be odd enough that many people > find it hard to learn. > Any ideas how popular Prolog is today? I only tried it briefly some 30 years ago - and I found it too odd to bother learning. (I could say much the same about APL.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-24 17:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87tuz0wivt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #10985 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 24/06/2020 14:52, Ben Bacarisse wrote: <cut> >> Prolog comes with big numbers and some sophisticated mechanisms for >> satisfying constraints, but it seems to be odd enough that many people >> find it hard to learn. >> > > Any ideas how popular Prolog is today? Not really. My gut feeling is that it's almost dead except for those places that adopted it a few decades ago and keep it going. But I'd be very happy to be wrong about that. I use it every now and then. The world is a more interesting place with languages like Prolog in it. > I only tried it briefly some 30 > years ago - and I found it too odd to bother learning. (I could say > much the same about APL.) We need more odd-ball languages like APL (or J), SR, Icon, Argus and SNOBOL. Intellectual diversity is stimulating. The list is not meant to be exhaustive. If anyone knows of other interesting languages, post away... -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-24 20:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rd068d$jn1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10986 |
On 24/06/2020 18:03, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> On 24/06/2020 14:52, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > <cut> >>> Prolog comes with big numbers and some sophisticated mechanisms for >>> satisfying constraints, but it seems to be odd enough that many people >>> find it hard to learn. >>> >> >> Any ideas how popular Prolog is today? > > Not really. My gut feeling is that it's almost dead except for those > places that adopted it a few decades ago and keep it going. But I'd be > very happy to be wrong about that. I use it every now and then. The > world is a more interesting place with languages like Prolog in it. > I agree with that - it's good with a variety. >> I only tried it briefly some 30 >> years ago - and I found it too odd to bother learning. (I could say >> much the same about APL.) > > We need more odd-ball languages like APL (or J), SR, Icon, Argus and > SNOBOL. Intellectual diversity is stimulating. The list is not meant > to be exhaustive. If anyone knows of other interesting languages, post > away... > I did a few small FPGA designs using Confluence, which was a functional programming language for RTL hardware design. Code size was less than a tenth of what was needed for traditional Verilog or VHDL, was much more general and flexible, and much less error-prone. Unfortunately, it was a one-man project and that one man got bored and went on to make a new language for a different purpose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-24 14:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <74bd7c04-50af-466c-bc33-2e2e014069f5o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10989 |
Before the Rogaine and Viagra days I used to do PLC programming on a GE Fanuc machine at a factory in Wisconsin. Now if PLC programming isn't an oddball programming, I don't know what is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-26 06:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a5985c08-1ff5-41e6-bbf1-f743fb26382eo@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10985 |
On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 16:01:00 UTC+2, David Brown wrote: > Any ideas how popular Prolog is today? I only tried it briefly some 30 > years ago - and I found it too odd to bother learning. (I could say > much the same about APL.) Every programmer should get his or her head around Prolog, it is an important exercise (at it will take *SEVERAL YEARS*, I am not talking about just a Hello World). Indeed, there are three paradigms, read THREE: imperative, functional and logical. HTH, the innocent reader. (And now I am out of this shithole: Amine the resident bot is more interesting than you self-deluded and plain fucking spammers are. MORONS.) Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-26 16:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rd50lh$1i2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #11003 |
On 26/06/2020 15:24, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 16:01:00 UTC+2, David Brown wrote: > >> Any ideas how popular Prolog is today? I only tried it briefly some 30 >> years ago - and I found it too odd to bother learning. (I could say >> much the same about APL.) > > Every programmer should get his or her head around Prolog, it is an important > exercise (at it will take *SEVERAL YEARS*, I am not talking about just a Hello > World). Indeed, there are three paradigms, read THREE: imperative, functional > and logical. > There are /lots/ of programming paradigms, which can be divided up and classified in all sorts of ways. Wikipedia lists dozens: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigm> There is no point in learning anything about Prolog unless you are interested in that kind of programming. It might be /interesting/, but it is pointless for almost all programmers. It makes sense for all programmers to learn some imperative programming as it is far and away the most dominant class of language. It can be good to learn functional programming if you want to expand more on the theory of programming, not just practical coding. Logical programming is a lot more niche, and an area that most programmers have nothing to gain from. > HTH, the innocent reader. > > (And now I am out of this shithole: Amine the resident bot is more interesting > than you self-deluded and plain fucking spammers are. MORONS.) > If you say so. Maybe you'll find a place where you'll learn what "spammer" means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-26 06:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d49b84f8-16a5-4f90-88e4-9ec41d3375d1o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10982 |
On Wednesday, 24 June 2020 14:53:01 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Prolog comes with big numbers and some sophisticated mechanisms for Choosing Prolog for big numbers (which not all Prolog systems support, BTW), is like choosing an automobile because it reminds your mama. > satisfying constraints, but it seems to be odd enough that many people > find it hard to learn. Just a couple of years ago you couldn't read the simplest Prolog at all, you stupidest fuck, now you are giving lessons... How fucking pathetic: I don't know if too call you a fucking liar, a deluded retard, or both. No worries, the others here aren't any better: indeed a parade of fucking spammers and retarded cunts. Yes, today I fell like calling you guys by your name: NOTING better to do anyway, you spamming pieces of crap and the triumph of retardedness uber alles. *Plonk* Julio
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-22 09:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a04920a-8a6a-4b01-8749-20020b9d6fa0o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10962 |
On Monday, June 22, 2020 at 7:34:35 PM UTC+7, syed owais wrote:
> How about extending the explorations done so far to finding solutions to
> a^5+b^5+c^5=d^5+e^5+f^5.
I think these are the 16 smallest such solutions:
1375298099 = 62^5 + 54^5 + 3^5 = 67^5 + 28^5 + 24^5
1419138368 = 64^5 + 51^5 + 13^5 = 66^5 +^5 + 44^5 + 18^5
2370099168 = 68^5 + 62^5 + 8^5 = 74^5 + 43^5 + 21^5
5839897526 = 81^5 + 72^5 + 53^5 = 83^5 + 67^5 + 56^5
16681039431 = 100^5 + 92^5 + 39^5 = 107^5 + 75^5 + 49^5
27326512069 = 116^5 + 90^5 + 53^5 = 118^5 + 85^5 + 26^5
28461637018 = 118^5 + 89^5 + 1^5 = 123^5 + 47^5 + 38^5
34090335168 = 114^5 + 106^5 + 68^5 = 119^5 + 96^5 + 73^5
44009539168 = 124^5 + 108^5 + 6^5 = 134^5 + 56^5 + 48^5
45412427776 = 128^5 + 102^5 + 26^5 = 132^5 + 88^5 + 36^5
47166830151 = 131^5 + 97^5 + 3^5 = 136^5 + 56^5 + 39^5
57788232400 = 138^5 + 95^5 + 17^5 = 142^5 + 35^5 + 13^5
75843173376 = 136^5 + 124^5 + 16^5 = 148^5 + 86^5 + 42^5
89516861675 = 150^5 + 94^5 + 91^5 = 155^5 + 32^5 + 28^5
89636142881 = 140^5 + 129^5 + 42^5 = 152^5 + 94^5 + 65^5
140201053499 = 159^5 + 131^5 + 9^5 = 169^5 + 67^5 + 63^5
Let me second the suggestion that you learn a programming
language to seek such answers yourself.
The program I used for this was just 20 lines of
very simple C code to generate ALL x^5 + y^5 + z^5,
accompanied with the shell command
awk ' { print $1 } ' | sort -n | uniq -c | grep " [2-9] "
to look for duplicates.
James Dow Allen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | syed owais <syedanwarowais5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-23 00:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7c0f32a-d803-4665-a3d6-56497cd84582o@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10964 |
would running this program require a computer with a big RAM?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-06-23 05:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e613930a-ce14-4a8b-9614-e5be4b6ba1aeo@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10968 |
On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 2:50:15 PM UTC+7, syed owais wrote: > would running this program require a computer with a big RAM? No. That's why it's a TWO-pass algorithm. Pass 1:Generate all the a^5+b^5+c^5 and write them to disk. Pass2 is the time-consuming part: the sort to find duplicates, but even that is rather trivial with today's machines. (I didn't try *sixth* powers -- eventually a point will come where cleverness is needed.) How much RAM do you have by the way? It was 45+ years ago I had my first "personal computer" -- a hacked-up Interdata Model 4 -- and my boss apologized for its gargantuan 64 kbyte of ram: "I know that's a ridiculously large amount of memory; don't feel bad if you don't put it all to use." I wrote an OS that used about 6 kb. The biggest program that I ran was the Assembler; to Assemble the Assembler itself was a two-pass operation, IIRC, using the card reader-punch! (Yes, those are "Kilobytes." With a 'K.') On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 at 6:50:57 PM UTC+7, syed owais wrote: > ...I am learning fortran,which I believe is suitable for engineers and scientists. Do you LIKE Fortran? Have you looked at other languages? The idea that Fortran is especially suitable for engineers strikes me as somewhat ... obsolescent of an idea. I am a C fan myself, which makes me rather obsolescent compared with the cool guys. :-) But I think almost any language would be more FUN than Fortran. James Dow Allen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.programming
csiph-web