Talk:Van der Corput sequence: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 03:28, 26 March 2012

Python output

Looks to me like the base 2 sample output for the Python example is actually base 3?--Tikkanz 08:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Umm, my (very good) maths teachers defence in such situations was to say "Excellent lad, you've found the deliberate mistake"! :-)

I'm at work at the moment but will correct the copy/paste error this evening. Thanks, --Paddy3118 09:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm? The text says base 3, numbers do look like base 2. Edit conflict? --Ledrug 07:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

displaying of terms

In every reference I've looked at, the 2nd term of the van der Corput sequenct (for base two) is
.1
(not) .10000000

I suggest that trailing zeroes illegitimize the terms. Mathematically, of course, .1 is equal to .100 (except to an engineer, where trailing zeroes signify more precision). -- Gerard Schildberger 03:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 : I'm at work at the moment but will correct the copy/paste error this evening. Thanks, --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 09:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 : Hmm? The text says base 3, numbers do look like base 2. Edit conflict? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 07:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
+== displaying of terms ==
+In every reference I've looked at, the 2nd term of the van der Corput sequenct (for base two) is
+<br> .1
+<br>(not) .10000000
+<br><br>I suggest that trailing zeroes illegitimize the terms. Mathematically, of course,  .1 is equal to .100 (except to an engineer, where trailing zeroes signify more precision). -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] 03:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)