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)

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)

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)