[Pharo-project] This is so cool, and we can compute it !
This is so cool, and we can compute it using Pharo Smalltalk. Try inspecting or printing the result of these expressions: 1/9801 asScaledDecimal: 200 1/998001 asScaledDecimal: 3000 And have a good look at the regularity in the digits of the fraction. Amazing ! Sven
this is probably the result of the constant effort of nicolas and a couple of others :) On Jan 26, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
This is so cool, and we can compute it using Pharo Smalltalk.
Try inspecting or printing the result of these expressions:
1/9801 asScaledDecimal: 200
1/998001 asScaledDecimal: 3000
And have a good look at the regularity in the digits of the fraction.
Amazing !
Sven
This is probably the fact that some lispers had the idea of representing integers of arbitrary length then fraction with infinite precision in the machine. This inspired a post http://smallissimo.blogspot.com/2012/01/which-fraction-has-these-digits.html Nicolas 2012/1/27 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>:
this is probably the result of the constant effort of nicolas and a couple of others :) On Jan 26, 2012, at 8:44 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
This is so cool, and we can compute it using Pharo Smalltalk.
Try inspecting or printing the result of these expressions:
 1/9801 asScaledDecimal: 200
 1/998001 asScaledDecimal: 3000
And have a good look at the regularity in the digits of the fraction.
Amazing !
Sven
On 27 Jan 2012, at 10:34, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
This is probably the fact that some lispers had the idea of representing integers of arbitrary length then fraction with infinite precision in the machine.
This inspired a post http://smallissimo.blogspot.com/2012/01/which-fraction-has-these-digits.html
Cool! I did of course not find this myself, I read it here http://www.iheartchaos.com/post/16393143676/fun-with-math-dividing-one-by-99... who read it here http://www.geekosystem.com/one-divided-by-998001/ who read it here http://www.futilitycloset.com/2012/01/08/math-notes-76/ But I really don't know if that last person invented it.
Am 26.01.2012 um 20:44 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe:
This is so cool, and we can compute it using Pharo Smalltalk.
Try inspecting or printing the result of these expressions:
1/9801 asScaledDecimal: 200
1/998001 asScaledDecimal: 3000
And have a good look at the regularity in the digits of the fraction.
I think I've found a bug. Mine ends with ... 990991992993994995996997999000s3000 You can see after 997 there is 999. :) Norbert
On 27 Jan 2012, at 11:08, Norbert Hartl wrote:
I think I've found a bug. Mine ends with
...
990991992993994995996997999000s3000
You can see after 997 there is 999. :)
Yeah, the decimals printed in blocks look like this: 000001002003004005006007008009 010011012013014015016017018019 020021022023024025026027028029 030031032033034035036037038039 040041042043044045046047048049 050051052053054055056057058059 060061062063064065066067068069 070071072073074075076077078079 080081082083084085086087088089 090091092093094095096097098099 100101102103104105106107108109 110111112113114115116117118119 120121122123124125126127128129 130131132133134135136137138139 140141142143144145146147148149 150151152153154155156157158159 160161162163164165166167168169 170171172173174175176177178179 180181182183184185186187188189 190191192193194195196197198199 200201202203204205206207208209 210211212213214215216217218219 220221222223224225226227228229 230231232233234235236237238239 240241242243244245246247248249 250251252253254255256257258259 260261262263264265266267268269 270271272273274275276277278279 280281282283284285286287288289 290291292293294295296297298299 300301302303304305306307308309 310311312313314315316317318319 320321322323324325326327328329 330331332333334335336337338339 340341342343344345346347348349 350351352353354355356357358359 360361362363364365366367368369 370371372373374375376377378379 380381382383384385386387388389 390391392393394395396397398399 400401402403404405406407408409 410411412413414415416417418419 420421422423424425426427428429 430431432433434435436437438439 440441442443444445446447448449 450451452453454455456457458459 460461462463464465466467468469 470471472473474475476477478479 480481482483484485486487488489 490491492493494495496497498499 500501502503504505506507508509 510511512513514515516517518519 520521522523524525526527528529 530531532533534535536537538539 540541542543544545546547548549 550551552553554555556557558559 560561562563564565566567568569 570571572573574575576577578579 580581582583584585586587588589 590591592593594595596597598599 600601602603604605606607608609 610611612613614615616617618619 620621622623624625626627628629 630631632633634635636637638639 640641642643644645646647648649 650651652653654655656657658659 660661662663664665666667668669 670671672673674675676677678679 680681682683684685686687688689 690691692693694695696697698699 700701702703704705706707708709 710711712713714715716717718719 720721722723724725726727728729 730731732733734735736737738739 740741742743744745746747748749 750751752753754755756757758759 760761762763764765766767768769 770771772773774775776777778779 780781782783784785786787788789 790791792793794795796797798799 800801802803804805806807808809 810811812813814815816817818819 820821822823824825826827828829 830831832833834835836837838839 840841842843844845846847848849 850851852853854855856857858859 860861862863864865866867868869 870871872873874875876877878879 880881882883884885886887888889 890891892893894895896897898899 900901902903904905906907908909 910911912913914915916917918919 920921922923924925926927928929 930931932933934935936937938939 940941942943944945946947948949 950951952953954955956957958959 960961962963964965966967968969 970971972973974975976977978979 980981982983984985986987988989 990991992993994995996997999000 So, yes it seems the end has a problem. I think we will have to ask our math genius in residence, Nicolas, to explain this ;-) Sven
2012/1/27 Sven Van Caekenberghe <sven@beta9.be>:
On 27 Jan 2012, at 11:08, Norbert Hartl wrote:
I think I've found a bug. Mine ends with
...
990991992993994995996997999000s3000
You can see after 997 there is 999. :)
Yeah, the decimals printed in blocks look like this:
000001002003004005006007008009 010011012013014015016017018019 020021022023024025026027028029 030031032033034035036037038039 040041042043044045046047048049 050051052053054055056057058059 060061062063064065066067068069 070071072073074075076077078079 080081082083084085086087088089 090091092093094095096097098099 100101102103104105106107108109 110111112113114115116117118119 120121122123124125126127128129 130131132133134135136137138139 140141142143144145146147148149 150151152153154155156157158159 160161162163164165166167168169 170171172173174175176177178179 180181182183184185186187188189 190191192193194195196197198199 200201202203204205206207208209 210211212213214215216217218219 220221222223224225226227228229 230231232233234235236237238239 240241242243244245246247248249 250251252253254255256257258259 260261262263264265266267268269 270271272273274275276277278279 280281282283284285286287288289 290291292293294295296297298299 300301302303304305306307308309 310311312313314315316317318319 320321322323324325326327328329 330331332333334335336337338339 340341342343344345346347348349 350351352353354355356357358359 360361362363364365366367368369 370371372373374375376377378379 380381382383384385386387388389 390391392393394395396397398399 400401402403404405406407408409 410411412413414415416417418419 420421422423424425426427428429 430431432433434435436437438439 440441442443444445446447448449 450451452453454455456457458459 460461462463464465466467468469 470471472473474475476477478479 480481482483484485486487488489 490491492493494495496497498499 500501502503504505506507508509 510511512513514515516517518519 520521522523524525526527528529 530531532533534535536537538539 540541542543544545546547548549 550551552553554555556557558559 560561562563564565566567568569 570571572573574575576577578579 580581582583584585586587588589 590591592593594595596597598599 600601602603604605606607608609 610611612613614615616617618619 620621622623624625626627628629 630631632633634635636637638639 640641642643644645646647648649 650651652653654655656657658659 660661662663664665666667668669 670671672673674675676677678679 680681682683684685686687688689 690691692693694695696697698699 700701702703704705706707708709 710711712713714715716717718719 720721722723724725726727728729 730731732733734735736737738739 740741742743744745746747748749 750751752753754755756757758759 760761762763764765766767768769 770771772773774775776777778779 780781782783784785786787788789 790791792793794795796797798799 800801802803804805806807808809 810811812813814815816817818819 820821822823824825826827828829 830831832833834835836837838839 840841842843844845846847848849 850851852853854855856857858859 860861862863864865866867868869 870871872873874875876877878879 880881882883884885886887888889 890891892893894895896897898899 900901902903904905906907908909 910911912913914915916917918919 920921922923924925926927928929 930931932933934935936937938939 940941942943944945946947948949 950951952953954955956957958959 960961962963964965966967968969 970971972973974975976977978979 980981982983984985986987988989 990991992993994995996997999000
So, yes it seems the end has a problem.
I think we will have to ask our math genius in residence, Nicolas, to explain this ;-)
Sven
Alas, finding maths amusing is not enough to make a genius. It's just a pinch of salt. You can read the blog and try by yourself which fraction lead to this tail tail := ((0 to: 99) inject: '' writeStream into: [:s :n | n printOn: s base: base length: 2 padded: true. s]) contents. It won't be that short a Fraction. Nicolas
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:
... I think I've found a bug. Mine ends with
...
990991992993994995996997999000s3000
You can see after 997 there is 999. :)
I suspect it should be ...997998999 and not ...997999000. The 'issue' is that ScaledDecimal rounds the the number off that is is printing. You can find this in ScaledDecimal>>printOn: -Chris
It could have been a rounding problem, but it's not , the following digits are 001. The serie is tailored on purpose, to have a short fraction. It is based on 12345679/999999999 -> (1/81) You can also try to evaluate 9801 sqrt in a recent squeak or pharo, then 998001 sqrt. Nicolas 2012/1/27 Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb@gmail.com>:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:08 AM, Norbert Hartl <norbert@hartl.name> wrote:
... I think I've found a bug. Mine ends with
...
990991992993994995996997999000s3000
You can see after 997 there is 999. :)
I suspect it should be ...997998999 and not ...997999000. The 'issue' is that ScaledDecimal rounds the the number off that is is printing. You can find this in ScaledDecimal>>printOn:
-Chris
participants (5)
-
Chris Cunningham -
Nicolas Cellier -
Norbert Hartl -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Sven Van Caekenberghe