Anonymous user
Talk:Arbitrary-precision integers (included): Difference between revisions
Talk:Arbitrary-precision integers (included) (view source)
Revision as of 18:22, 2 June 2021
, 2 years agoadded a comment.
m (→Use of external libraries: format) |
m (added a comment.) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 43:
:The task notes address this. Why do you think them inadequate? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 19:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
First of all, the task should be redefined to '''enforce computations during the run time''', because 5**(4**(3**2)) can be precomputed or computed in a compile time (esp. in Haskell-like). Secondly, there is no need to say ''"do not submit an implementation of arbitrary precision arithmetic".'' De facto, to solve this task some kind "arbitrary precision arithmetic" (20 digits at least) must be used- either as an internal feature or as an external module/library. Finally, see "pure C solution" - it is '''ugly, but it SOLVE''' the problem: it is criticized as "this example is incorrect". It is not justified in any way, because the Rosseta Code is not a code golf competition and the length of the source code is not revelant.
--[[User:Anonymous31415927|Anonymous31415927]] ([[User talk:Anonymous31415927|talk]]) 12:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
== Criteria for Non-Draft? ==
Line 49 ⟶ 54:
:I'm pretty sure there are no criteria. It's just a consensus. This one seems to still have a little discussion going on about how we want it to work so maybe we should wait to make it a full task. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 16:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
::Whoops. I've changed it already due to the number of examples. Please put it back in draft if you think it needs it though. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 16:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
==“Precision”==
Line 56 ⟶ 62:
::''"In computer science, arbitrary-precision arithmetic is a technique whereby calculations are performed on numbers whose digits of precision are limited only by the available memory of the host system. This contrasts with the faster fixed-precision arithmetic found in most ALU hardware, which typically offers between 6 and 16 decimal digits. It is also called bignum arithmetic, and sometimes even "infinite-precision arithmetic" (which is a misnomer, since the number of digits is both finite and bounded in practice)."''
: --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 16:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
==Ursala took a day?==
On my four year old laptop, the Python version took around a minute to run. Maybe the Ursala version should not have used BCD if another representation is available? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 19:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
== Time constriction? ==
----
Copied from [[User talk:Short Circuit]]:
Line 72 ⟶ 82:
== Does the Clojure entry count the digits? ==
--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 06:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
==Move timings to the talk pages==
I'm not sure that timings should be included in answers except maybe in general terms, as [http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ The Computer Language Benchmarks Game] does it in a more rigourous way and yet still points out [http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/dont-jump-to-conclusions.php issues]. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 00:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Line 80 ⟶ 93:
::Thanks Kernigh. I know I prefer it this way rather than having to out-do TCLBG. What do others think? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 04:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
=== Timings with AMD Phenom II X2 560 ===
# C with GMP: 0m0.04s
# Ruby 1.9.2: 0m0.52s
Line 90 ⟶ 105:
--[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 03:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
== Missing output ==
Line 131 ⟶ 147:
Cosmetic edits made to the task page at 05:58, 24 July 2016 , including the injection of spaces around expressions in <math> tags, left the main expression completely invisible to all browsers which display the graphic file version of formulae rather than processing the MathML (this is, in fact, the majority of browsers). The MediaWiki processor does not currently expect such spaces, and generates syntactically ill-formed HTML if they are introduced. Other aspects of these cosmetic edits may further compound the problem. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 08:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
: Repaired [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 00:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
==failure of ooRexx using Classic REXX example==
Line 138 ⟶ 155:
ooRexx gives me
5 *-* n=5** (4** (3** 2)) /*calc. multiple
Error 26 running Z:\huge.rex line 5: Invalid whole number
Error 26.8: Operand to the right of the power operator (**) must be a whole number; found "2.6214E+5"
Line 146 ⟶ 163:
No answer yet. numeric digits 6 at the start fixes the problem for ooRexx --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 18:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
: (Note: the above comments should've been placed under the ooRexx language section, or here, on the discussion page.
: Also note that ooRexx won't execute a lot of Classic REXX examples (as evident here on Rosetta Code) as they are different languages with different syntax (dialects?) and statements, despite having '''REXX''' in their names. Although ooRexx claims to run any Classic REXX, all evidence is to the contrary.
: thereby bypassing the use/limit of '''numeric digits 5''' (as in the older/replaced 2<sup>nd</sup> version). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 18:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)▼
: Yes, Regina and R4 are both very lenient (liberal?) in their usage of exponents. But increasing the numeric digits just bypasses the problem, it doesn't fix it in that it is apparently one more difference between ooRexx and Classic REXXes.
▲: Also, the (internal) subroutines of these REXXes may use a '''numeric digits 9''', thereby bypassing the use/limit
| |||