Talk:Factorial: Difference between revisions
(made some cosmetic changes, added a header to the first set of comments/questions.) |
m (added a TOC.) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__TOC__ |
|||
==range limits for the factorial function== |
==range limits for the factorial function== |
||
Just a thought...it would be interesting to programmatically identify the range limits of the factorial function for the unknown implementation. (The C and c++ implementations, for example, will overflow at different places depending on the range of int.) --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
Just a thought...it would be interesting to programmatically identify the range limits of the factorial function for the unknown implementation. (The C and c++ implementations, for example, will overflow at different places depending on the range of int.) --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
Line 31: | Line 34: | ||
: Yes, it was inadvertently copied from the previous line. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 01:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC) |
: Yes, it was inadvertently copied from the previous line. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 01:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC) |
||
== The moving of 80386 to x86 Assembly == |
== The moving of 80386 to x86 Assembly == |
||
Line 36: | Line 40: | ||
I think it is better to use generic x86, and at most to specify a "works with", if needed, rather than let proliferate 80286, 80386, 80486, ... —[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
I think it is better to use generic x86, and at most to specify a "works with", if needed, rather than let proliferate 80286, 80386, 80486, ... —[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
: I agree to a point; there's a definite progression and tendency toward backwards-compatibility. However, there are incompatible revisions. It's possible that different modes (real, protected, long and legacy) warrant some degree of recognition as their own languages--these modes represent forward and reverse compatibility constraints. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 16:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
: I agree to a point; there's a definite progression and tendency toward backwards-compatibility. However, there are incompatible revisions. It's possible that different modes (real, protected, long and legacy) warrant some degree of recognition as their own languages--these modes represent forward and reverse compatibility constraints. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 16:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC) |
||
\ |
|||
==D output== |
==D output== |
||
Latest revision as of 13:54, 29 July 2021
range limits for the factorial function
Just a thought...it would be interesting to programmatically identify the range limits of the factorial function for the unknown implementation. (The C and c++ implementations, for example, will overflow at different places depending on the range of int.) --Short Circuit 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, for non-native speakers of any language, it would be nice to know how big the thingys are: int, short, long, long long, etc. For experienced programmers, I imagine this is old hat, but to programmers who can barely spell C, ... not so obvious. --- Gerard Schildberger 21:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ ───── Some factorial lengths ───── │ │ │ │ 10 ! = 7 digits │ │ 20 ! = 19 digits │ │ 52 ! = 68 digits │ │ 104 ! = 167 digits │ │ 208 ! = 394 digits │ │ 416 ! = 911 digits (8 deck shoe) │ │ │ │ 1k ! = 2,568 digits │ │ 10k ! = 35,660 digits │ │ 100k ! = 456,574 digits │ │ │ │ 1m ! = 5,565,709 digits │ │ 10m ! = 65,657,060 digits │ │ 100m ! = 756,570,556 digits │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
In the table above, the factorial length for 416! should be 911 rather than 394. Used www.javascripter.net/math/calculators/100digitbigintcalculator.htm to verify.
01:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it was inadvertently copied from the previous line. -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The moving of 80386 to x86 Assembly
I think it is better to use generic x86, and at most to specify a "works with", if needed, rather than let proliferate 80286, 80386, 80486, ... —ShinTakezou 14:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I agree to a point; there's a definite progression and tendency toward backwards-compatibility. However, there are incompatible revisions. It's possible that different modes (real, protected, long and legacy) warrant some degree of recognition as their own languages--these modes represent forward and reverse compatibility constraints. --Michael Mol 16:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
\
D output
Is the D output supposed to show (eight times) the value of (15!) ?
-- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
(This has been addressed and fixed.) -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)