Talk:Metallic ratios: Difference between revisions
→Please don't add unnecessarily large outputs: comment
(Question the initial values for the "Lucas sequences") |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 4:
: Why is it that you call my 10,000 decimal digit example (REXX) an insane precision, but 1,000,000 was extremely precise? In any case, it has been deleted. But, my reason wasn't to see extremely precisely calculated values of phi. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 01:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
::I didn't intend to call specifically '''your''' example insane. (Though I admit, effectively I did and I apologize for that.) I just wanted to head off people adding larger and larger dumps of digits to the page. Posting the number of iterations it took to determine is cool, and is moderately interesting/useful information that is not easily found in other places. Something perhaps like:
Reached 1000 after 2395 iterations.
Reached 10000 after 23927 iterations.
Reached 100000 after 239250 iterations.
... whatever ...
::The actual value though? That's easily available in other places. I used the adjective insane because posting it here just forces '''everybody''' to scroll through huge walls of low information text. I debated even just asking for the iteration count for the stretch goal. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 12:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
== Initial values for the "Lucas sequences" ==
| |||