On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 08:00:41 -0700, rantingrick wrote:
> A while back i had wondered why Guido never posts to c.l.py anymore. Was
> it because he thinks himself better than us, no, it's because of the
> "low-brow-infantile-Jerry-Springer-ish-nature" that this list has
> imploded into. *puke*
Comp
On 04/04/10 13:01, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> On Apr 3, 9:24 pm, Steven D'Aprano cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>> To put it another way, even though there are an infinite number of
>> rationals, they are vanishingly rare compared to the irrationals. If you
>> could choose a random number from the real n
On Apr 4, 10:00 am, rantingrick wrote:
> This is amazing, how can such an off topic post based completely on
> lunacy exist so long here? 54 posts and counting. I think i had this
> very argument in grade school. We have SD'A, Tim Chase, MSRB, and yes
> even Steve Holden again participating in th
rantingrick ha scritto:
On Apr 1, 3:44 pm, superpollo wrote:
how much is one half times one half?
This is amazing, how can such an off topic post based completely on
lunacy exist so long here? 54 posts and counting. I think i had this
very argument in grade school. We have SD'A, Tim Chase, MS
On Apr 1, 3:44 pm, superpollo wrote:
> how much is one half times one half?
This is amazing, how can such an off topic post based completely on
lunacy exist so long here? 54 posts and counting. I think i had this
very argument in grade school. We have SD'A, Tim Chase, MSRB, and yes
even Steve Hol
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 13:59:57 +0200 Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
> Computers by themselves have as much a notion of Rationals as they
> have of Irrationals, or, for that matter, the cuteness puppies.
Strike that. Floats in computers are Rationals. So computers do know
them. However, they are still
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 23:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Mensanator
wrote:
> On Apr 3, 9:03 pm, Steven D'Aprano cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> > On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 09:35:34 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
> > > On Apr 3, 10:17 am, Steven D'Aprano > > cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> > >> But you're not multiplying four num
On Apr 3, 9:03 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 09:35:34 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 10:17 am, Steven D'Aprano > cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:43:41 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
> >> > I am replying to this post not because I disagree but bec
On Apr 3, 9:24 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> To put it another way, even though there are an infinite number of
> rationals, they are vanishingly rare compared to the irrationals. If you
> could choose a random number from the real number line, it almost
> certainly would be irrational.
Yet anothe
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 10:56:37 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>> The square root of 2 is irrational, but if you multiply it by itself
>> then the result isn't irrational, so not all operations involving
>> irrational numbers will result in an irrational result (unless that's
>> what you mean by "close
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 09:35:34 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
> On Apr 3, 10:17 am, Steven D'Aprano cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:43:41 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
>> > I am replying to this post not because I disagree but because it
>> > postalogically fits the best (I am by
On 04/03/10 16:46, Patrick Maupin wrote:
On Apr 3, 9:43 am, "Martin P. Hellwig"> IMHO, the crackpot in this
regard is actually partially right,
multiplication does mean that the number must get bigger, however for
fractions you multiply four numbers, two numerators and two
denominators. The res
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0400 Steve Holden
wrote:
> Correct. Unfortunately, it doesn't help to use the right ones either.
> In fact, that could almost be a definition of "crackpot" (and alas now
> we approach territory where we risk offending the religious, so I will
> cease and desist).
E
On Apr 3, 12:39 pm, MRAB wrote:
> Patrick Maupin wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 11:59 am, Emile van Sebille wrote:
> >> On 4/3/2010 8:46 AM Patrick Maupin said...
>
> >>> On Apr 3, 9:43 am, "Martin P. Hellwig"> IMHO, the crackpot in this
> >>> regard is actually partially right,
> multiplication does
Patrick Maupin wrote:
On Apr 3, 11:59 am, Emile van Sebille wrote:
On 4/3/2010 8:46 AM Patrick Maupin said...
On Apr 3, 9:43 am, "Martin P. Hellwig"> IMHO, the crackpot in this
regard is actually partially right,
multiplication does mean that the number must get bigger, however for
fraction
On Apr 3, 11:59 am, Emile van Sebille wrote:
> On 4/3/2010 8:46 AM Patrick Maupin said...
>
> > On Apr 3, 9:43 am, "Martin P. Hellwig"> IMHO, the crackpot in this
> > regard is actually partially right,
> >> multiplication does mean that the number must get bigger, however for
> >> fractions you
Mensanator wrote:
[...]
> When dealing with crackpots, it does not help to use the
> wrong arguments. [...]
Correct. Unfortunately, it doesn't help to use the right ones either.
In fact, that could almost be a definition of "crackpot" (and alas now
we approach territory where we risk offending th
On 4/3/2010 8:46 AM Patrick Maupin said...
On Apr 3, 9:43 am, "Martin P. Hellwig"> IMHO, the crackpot in this
regard is actually partially right,
multiplication does mean that the number must get bigger, however for
fractions you multiply four numbers, two numerators and two
denominators. The r
On Apr 3, 10:17 am, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:43:41 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
> > I am replying to this post not because I disagree but because it
> > postalogically fits the best (I am by no means an expert either).
>
> > IMHO, the crackpot in this regard is actually
On 04/03/10 16:17, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:43:41 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
I am replying to this post not because I disagree but because it
postalogically fits the best (I am by no means an expert either).
IMHO, the crackpot in this regard is actually partially rig
Patrick Maupin ha scritto:
On Apr 3, 8:00 am, superpollo wrote:
sorry if I misunderstood.
no no you understood prfectly *but* the thing is i am a regular in an
italian language math ng which is haunted by a crackpot who insists that
1/2 * 1/2 cannot be 1/4, "because multiplication means gettin
On Apr 3, 8:00 am, superpollo wrote:
> > sorry if I misunderstood.
>
> no no you understood prfectly *but* the thing is i am a regular in an
> italian language math ng which is haunted by a crackpot who insists that
> 1/2 * 1/2 cannot be 1/4, "because multiplication means getting bigger",
> so i t
On Apr 3, 9:43 am, "Martin P. Hellwig" > IMHO, the crackpot in this
regard is actually partially right,
> multiplication does mean that the number must get bigger, however for
> fractions you multiply four numbers, two numerators and two
> denominators. The resulting numerator and denominator by th
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:43:41 +0100, Martin P. Hellwig wrote:
> I am replying to this post not because I disagree but because it
> postalogically fits the best (I am by no means an expert either).
>
> IMHO, the crackpot in this regard is actually partially right,
> multiplication does mean that t
superpollo wrote:
Steve Holden ha scritto:
superpollo wrote:
Patrick Maupin ha scritto:
On Apr 2, 2:41 pm, Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
While everyone else is mocking you: Can you please elaborate on why
you
want to know and what kind of problem you're trying to solve with
this?
Also, don'
On 04/03/10 14:38, Steve Holden wrote:
If you think you will persuade a crackpot to drop his lunacy by logical
argument you are clearly an optimist of the first water. But since I
like a challenge (and bearing in mind this is OT so I don't claim to be
an expert) you might try first of all persu
superpollo wrote:
> Steve Holden ha scritto:
[...]
>> If he agrees to that, then get him to agree that x * 1 == x for any x.
>>
>> If he agrees to that
>
> he does not, since "you cannot multiply something, and not getting some
> more of it" ... he is stuck with the latin etimology of "multiply"
>
Mensanator ha scritto:
On Apr 3, 8:00 am, superpollo wrote:
Patrick Maupin ha scritto:
On Apr 2, 2:41 pm, Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
While everyone else is mocking you: Can you please elaborate on why you
want to know and what kind of problem you're trying to solve with this?
Also, don
Steve Holden ha scritto:
superpollo wrote:
Patrick Maupin ha scritto:
On Apr 2, 2:41 pm, Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
While everyone else is mocking you: Can you please elaborate on why you
want to know and what kind of problem you're trying to solve with this?
Also, don't you think you shoul
On Apr 3, 8:00 am, superpollo wrote:
> Patrick Maupin ha scritto:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 2:41 pm, Andreas Waldenburger
> > wrote:
>
> >> While everyone else is mocking you: Can you please elaborate on why you
> >> want to know and what kind of problem you're trying to solve with this?
> >> Also,
superpollo wrote:
> Patrick Maupin ha scritto:
>> On Apr 2, 2:41 pm, Andreas Waldenburger
>> wrote:
>>
>>> While everyone else is mocking you: Can you please elaborate on why you
>>> want to know and what kind of problem you're trying to solve with this?
>>> Also, don't you think you should have p
Patrick Maupin ha scritto:
On Apr 2, 2:41 pm, Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
While everyone else is mocking you: Can you please elaborate on why you
want to know and what kind of problem you're trying to solve with this?
Also, don't you think you should have picked a maths forum for this
kind of
On Apr 2, 8:29 pm, Mensanator wrote:
> Don't you know how Usenet works?
No, but my cat does.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Apr 2, 7:32 pm, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> On Apr 2, 6:50 pm, Mensanator wrote:
>
> > On Apr 2, 2:34 pm, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> > > Methinks the OP is fluent in the way of choosing newsgroups.
> > > According to google, he has posted 6855 messages in 213 groups.
>
> > Does that really mean an
On Apr 2, 6:50 pm, Mensanator wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2:34 pm, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
> > Methinks the OP is fluent in the way of choosing newsgroups.
> > According to google, he has posted 6855 messages in 213 groups.
>
> Does that really mean anything? Hell, I have 12765 messages
> posted to 332 gr
On Apr 2, 2:34 pm, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2:41 pm, Andreas Waldenburger
> wrote:
>
> > While everyone else is mocking you: Can you please elaborate on why you
> > want to know and what kind of problem you're trying to solve with this?
> > Also, don't you think you should have picked a
On Apr 2, 6:07 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:35:55 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
> >> If you want an exact result when multiplying arbitrary fractions, you
> >> need to avoid floats and decimals and use Fractions:
>
> >> >>> Fraction(1, 2)**2
>
> >> Fraction(1, 4)
>
> > Where do y
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:35:55 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
>> If you want an exact result when multiplying arbitrary fractions, you
>> need to avoid floats and decimals and use Fractions:
>>
>> >>> Fraction(1, 2)**2
>>
>> Fraction(1, 4)
>
> Where do you get that from?
Where do I get what from? Fracti
Mensanator wrote:
On Apr 1, 9:44 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
1/2.0
0.25
If you want an exact result when multiplying arbitrary fractions, you
need to avoid floats and decimals and use Fractions:
Fraction(1, 2)**2
Fraction(1, 4)
Where do you get that
On Apr 1, 9:44 pm, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:49:43 -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
> > David Robinow wrote:
> >> $ python -c "print 1/2 * 1/2"
> >> 0
>
> >> But that's not what I learned in grade school.
> >> (Maybe I should upgrade to 3.1?)
>
> > That's because you need to promote
On Apr 2, 2:41 pm, Andreas Waldenburger
wrote:
> While everyone else is mocking you: Can you please elaborate on why you
> want to know and what kind of problem you're trying to solve with this?
> Also, don't you think you should have picked a maths forum for this
> kind of question?
Methinks th
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 22:44:51 +0200 superpollo
wrote:
> how much is one half times one half?
While everyone else is mocking you: Can you please elaborate on why you
want to know and what kind of problem you're trying to solve with this?
Also, don't you think you should have picked a maths forum f
Patrick Maupin, 02.04.2010 07:25:
On Apr 1, 11:52 pm, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 22:44:51 +0200, superpollo
declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
how much is one half times one half?
import math
print math.exp((math.log(1) - math.log(2))
On Apr 1, 7:34 pm, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> On Apr 1, 4:42 pm, Tim Chase wrote:
> > Uh, did you try it at the python prompt?
When I try it at the IPython prompt, I get
Object 'how much is one half times one half' not found.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 22:34:46 -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
>> Tim, I'm sure you know the answer to this, but for the benefit of the
>> Original Poster, the problem is that you need to promote *both*
>> divisions to floating point. Otherwise one of them will give int 0,
>> which gives 0.0 when multiplied
On Apr 1, 11:52 pm, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 22:44:51 +0200, superpollo
> declaimed the following in gmane.comp.python.general:
>
> > how much is one half times one half?
>
> import math
> print math.exp((math.log(1) - math.log(2))
> + (math.
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
That's because you need to promote one of them to a float so you get a
floating-point result:
>>> 1/2 * 1/2
0
>>> 1/2 * 1/2.0
0.0
Oh...wait ;-)
Tim, I'm sure you know the answer to this, but for the benefit of the
Original Poster, the problem is that you ne
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:49:43 -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
>
>> David Robinow wrote:
>>> $ python -c "print 1/2 * 1/2"
>>> 0
>>>
>>> But that's not what I learned in grade school.
>>> (Maybe I should upgrade to 3.1?)
>>
>> That's because you nee
On Apr 1, 9:50 pm, Lie Ryan wrote:
> On 04/02/10 13:01, Patrick Maupin wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 1, 7:49 pm, Tim Chase wrote:
> >> David Robinow wrote:
> >>> $ python -c "print 1/2 * 1/2"
> >>> 0
>
> >>> But that's not what I learned in grade school.
> >>> (Maybe I should upgrade to 3.1?)
>
> >> T
On 04/02/10 13:01, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> On Apr 1, 7:49 pm, Tim Chase wrote:
>> David Robinow wrote:
>>> $ python -c "print 1/2 * 1/2"
>>> 0
>>
>>> But that's not what I learned in grade school.
>>> (Maybe I should upgrade to 3.1?)
>>
>> That's because you need to promote one of them to a float
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:49:43 -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
> David Robinow wrote:
>> $ python -c "print 1/2 * 1/2"
>> 0
>>
>> But that's not what I learned in grade school.
>> (Maybe I should upgrade to 3.1?)
>
> That's because you need to promote one of them to a float so you get a
> floating-point
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:55:27 -0400, David Robinow wrote:
>>> superpollo wrote:
>>> > how much is one half times one half?
[...]
> Well, my python says:
>
> $ python -c "print 1/2 * 1/2"
> 0
>
> But that's not what I learned in grade school.
> (Maybe I should upgrade to 3.1?)
Python 2.x defaul
On Apr 1, 7:49 pm, Tim Chase wrote:
> David Robinow wrote:
> > $ python -c "print 1/2 * 1/2"
> > 0
>
> > But that's not what I learned in grade school.
> > (Maybe I should upgrade to 3.1?)
>
> That's because you need to promote one of them to a float so you
> get a floating-point result:
>
> >
David Robinow wrote:
$ python -c "print 1/2 * 1/2"
0
But that's not what I learned in grade school.
(Maybe I should upgrade to 3.1?)
That's because you need to promote one of them to a float so you
get a floating-point result:
>>> 1/2 * 1/2
0
>>> 1/2 * 1/2.0
0.0
Oh...wait ;-)
-tk
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> On Apr 1, 4:42 pm, Tim Chase wrote:
>> superpollo wrote:
>> > how much is one half times one half?
>>
>> Uh, did you try it at the python prompt? If not, here's the answer:
>>
>> 0.1b * 0.1b = 0.01b
>>
>> Now all you need is to find the r
On Apr 1, 4:42 pm, Tim Chase wrote:
> superpollo wrote:
> > how much is one half times one half?
>
> Uh, did you try it at the python prompt? If not, here's the answer:
>
> 0.1b * 0.1b = 0.01b
>
> Now all you need is to find the recent thread that converts
> binary floats to decimal floats ;-)
superpollo wrote:
how much is one half times one half?
Uh, did you try it at the python prompt? If not, here's the answer:
0.1b * 0.1b = 0.01b
Now all you need is to find the recent thread that converts
binary floats to decimal floats ;-)
-tkc
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinf
how much is one half times one half?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
58 matches
Mail list logo
