Talk:Babbage problem: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 20:13, 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)

Good point. --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.) --Edmund (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

computer program comments

It's a good thing that Charles Babbage, being English, understands ..., er, ... English --- otherwise all of our computer programming languages' comments would be for naught. Ay, what? Jolly good show! -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

Can we not limit ourselves to a picture of the Analytical Engine, two pictures is a bit much. Fwend (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Three pictures may be a bit much, two is just right. It's hard to get 1.5 pictures for an average. Just ignore the 2nd picture and not look at it. It's not hurting anything (with the right-justified image). This Rosetta Code task is more about Charles Babbage understanding the computer programs than his analytical engine. I only included the image of the engine because I thought it looked interesting. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It's crowding the BBC BASIC entry, at least on my screen. Also in other tasks we don't include pictures of the people who invented algorithms either. What is special about Babbage is not his mug but the Analytical Engine. Anyway, we could also move the BBC BASIC entry down, but it would leave a rather large gap. Fwend (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

On my screen it looks good as is, but if we only have room for one picture my vote would go for Babbage. True, it's the Analytical Engine he's famous for—but this task is more about Babbage the person. "Write a program for him to read." Edmund (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 : Three pictures may be a bit much, two is just right. &nbsp; It's hard to get 1.5 pictures for an average. &nbsp; Just ignore the 2nd picture and not look at it. &nbsp; It's not hurting anything (with the right-justified image). &nbsp; This Rosetta Code task is more about Charles Babbage understanding the computer programs than his analytical engine. &nbsp; I only included the image of the engine because I thought it looked interesting. &nbsp; -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 11:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 :: It's crowding the BBC BASIC entry, at least on my screen. Also in other tasks we don't include pictures of the people who invented algorithms either. What is special about Babbage is not his mug but the Analytical Engine. Anyway, we could also move the BBC BASIC entry down, but it would leave a rather large gap. [[User:Fwend|Fwend]] ([[User talk:Fwend|talk]]) 11:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
+::: On my screen it looks good as is, but if we only have room for one picture my vote would go for Babbage. True, it's the Analytical Engine he's famous for—but this task is more about Babbage the person. "Write a program for <i>him</i> to read." [[User:Edmund|Edmund]] ([[User talk:Edmund|talk]]) 20:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)