Talk:Babbage problem: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
m (→task clarification: fixed a closing HTML tag (BIG).) |
|||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
: Good point. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 01:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC) |
: Good point. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 01:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
: I've clarified the wording so it now asks for the smallest positive integer. The reference in the Hollingdale and Tootill book only says 'smallest number': but the fact Babbage thought 99736 was the answer makes it clear it was a positive integer he was after. (Hope I'm doing this right—I'm quite new to Rosetta Code.) --[[User:Edmund|Edmund]] ([[User talk:Edmund|talk]]) 05:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:52, 13 April 2016
task clarification
I can only assume that a positive integer is meant to be found, otherwise finding the smallest negative integer would be pointless.
How about:
-99,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,025,264
(Of course, there are smaller numbers!)
And, in the hinterlands of the Rosetta Code coders, it was heard:
Oh yeah? my googolplex thingy is bigger than your googolplex thingy. So there!
-- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've clarified the wording so it now asks for the smallest positive integer. The reference in the Hollingdale and Tootill book only says 'smallest number': but the fact Babbage thought 99736 was the answer makes it clear it was a positive integer he was after. (Hope I'm doing this right—I'm quite new to Rosetta Code.) --Edmund (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)