Talk:Continued fraction/Arithmetic/Construct from rational number: Difference between revisions
Talk:Continued fraction/Arithmetic/Construct from rational number (view source)
Revision as of 13:53, 11 February 2013
, 11 years ago→Why just rationals?
(→Why just rationals?: new section) |
|||
Line 23:
So perhaps we can just generalize this to a function that just takes a real number. -- [[User:Spoon!|Spoon!]] 22:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
: Obviously it is not a problem to add other translations and explore their advantages and limitaions, noting that the results will be language dependant. Note that [[http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Continued_fraction_arithmetic/Continued_fraction_r2cf%28Rational_N%29#1.2F2_3_23.2F8_13.2F11_22.2F7]] calculates the continued fraction for 22/7 as a rational number. [[Continued_fraction_arithmetic/Continued_fraction_r2cf(Rational_N)#Real_approximations_of_a_rational_number]] demonstrates ever closer approximations of 22/7. The related continued fraction tasks will assume that you generate [3;7] when 22/7 is entered. If you enter 22.0/7 into your Python 'pseudo real' r2cf will you have to do more to interpret your result as [3;7,<math>\infty</math>] which is equivalent? Note that the Perl6 example handles 22/7 correctly, but Perl6 has built into it a Symbolic Maths ability. Compare [[Carmichael_3_strong_pseudoprimes,_or_Miller_Rabin's_nemesis#Perl_6]] with [[Carmichael_3_strong_pseudoprimes,_or_Miller_Rabin's_nemesis#Python]] and decide if this comes at a price or if Perl6's use of floor is a mistake. The objective in further tasks will be to calculate <math>\sqrt 2</math> x <math>\sqrt 2</math> as 2, which will require understanding the continued fractions as described here. --[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] 13:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
| |||