Talk:Babbage problem
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)
- 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)
computer program comments
It's a good thing that Charles Babbage, being English, understands ..., er, ... English --- otherwise all of our computer programming languages' comments would be for naught. Ay, what? Jolly good show! -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Pictures
Can we not limit ourselves to a picture of the Analytical Engine, two pictures is a bit much. Fwend (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)