On 17/12/2022 18:55, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Grant Edwards writes:
>> Yes, fixed point (or decimal) is a better fit for what he's doing. but
>> I suspect that floating point would be a better fit for the problem
>> he's trying to solve.
>
> I'd like to predict that within the next ten posts in this
On 11/12/2022 10:57, Martin Di Paola wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 10:37:39PM -0300, Sabrina Almodóvar wrote:
>>> The Python Paradox
>>> Paul Graham
>>> August 2004
>>>
&g
On 07/12/2022 13:45, Stefan Ram wrote:
[...]
> |One of the oldest interpretations is the /limit frequency/
> |interpretation. If the conditioning event /C/ can lead
> |to either A or "not A", and if in /n/ repetitions of such
> |a situation the event A occurs /m/ times, then it is asserted
> |t
On 07/12/2022 14:04, Stefan Ram wrote:
> r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> So, in this case, careful code reviews might be better than
>> tests. For example, assuming, random.intrange( 0, 2 ) works
>> as advertised, we can be pretty sure that
>> 0 if random.randint( 0, 2 ) else 1
>>
On 07/12/2022 13:05, David Lowry-Duda wrote:
> Inspired by the recent thread about pseudorandom number generators on
> python-ideas (where I also mistakenly first wrote this message), I began
> to wonder: suppose that I had a pseudorandom number generator that
> attempted to generate a nonuniform d
The Python Paradox
Paul Graham
August 2004
In a recent talk [1] I said something that upset a lot of people: that
you could get smarter programmers to work on a Python project than you
could to work on a Java proje
On 04/12/2022 17:08, Eryk Sun wrote:
> On 12/2/22, biglee12...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> From this point on Python became unusable as I uninstalled rebooted then
>> reinstalled to find I have the same issues as stated. Finally uninstalled
>> Python as it doesn't perform as usual especially trying to
