Talk:Babbage problem: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 05:52, 13 April 2016

task clarification

I can only assume that a positive integer is meant to be found, otherwise finding the smallest negative integer would be pointless.

How about:

-99,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,025,264

(Of course, there are smaller numbers!)

And, in the hinterlands of the Rosetta Code coders, it was heard:

Oh yeah? my googolplex thingy is bigger than your googolplex thingy. So there!

-- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point. --Rdm (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I've clarified the wording so it now asks for the smallest positive integer. The reference in the Hollingdale and Tootill book only says 'smallest number': but the fact Babbage thought 99736 was the answer makes it clear it was a positive integer he was after. (Hope I'm doing this right—I'm quite new to Rosetta Code.) --Edmund (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:10, 13 April 2016 (view source) rosettacode>Gerard Schildberger m (→‎task clarification: fixed a closing HTML tag (BIG).) ← Older edit		Revision as of 05:52, 13 April 2016 (view source) Edmund (talk \| contribs) (→‎task clarification) Newer edit →
Line 20:		Line 20:

	: Good point. --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm\|talk]]) 01:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)		: Good point. --[[User:Rdm\|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm\|talk]]) 01:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

			: I've clarified the wording so it now asks for the smallest positive integer. The reference in the Hollingdale and Tootill book only says 'smallest number': but the fact Babbage thought 99736 was the answer makes it clear it was a positive integer he was after. (Hope I'm doing this right—I'm quite new to Rosetta Code.) --[[User:Edmund\|Edmund]] ([[User talk:Edmund\|talk]]) 05:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)