User talk:Thundergnat: Difference between revisions
→Calculating Ramanujan's constant
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) m (→Calculating Ramanujan's constant: Added a link to a gist) |
SqrtNegInf (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 440:
:This looks like a pretty cool task. It is interesting how much code it pulls in from other tasks, (and helped highlight some bugs in those examples.) I am amused that Ramanujan's constant was named by Martin Gardner as an April Fools prank. I tried rewriting a few of the subs to see if I could "improve" them but ended up about the same or worse. I do have a few suggestions. Added pull request to the repository. The only thing I see that may need clarification: you are asking for at least 32 digits of precision but only displaying 14. May want to either ask for less or display more. '''EDIT>''' (I would display more. See this gist for possible mods: https://gist.github.com/thundergnat/26ac75141cda5614c3da44e6a537f40e ) '''<END EDIT''' I'd say go for it. --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 12:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
::All this is remarkably helpful. I knew there was an issue with '**' (in the debugger it would take ''minutes'' to step out of the function) but didn't know how to resolve. TIL, and turned out to be simplicity itself. And best of all, you found a typo that crept in (^5 vs ^d) that was crippling the precision of the π calculation–I definitely owe you a $beverage! Regarding 32/14: I guess I was phrasing it in a confusing manner, and everyone expects to be talking about number of values right of the decimal, so will go with that. And, yes, why not go with more precision. Will incorporate your suggestions, finalize, and add task soon. Regarding Gardner: Some nostalgia involved in this task, as I fell for the prank at the time. Had just starting subscribing to Sci.Am., and was but a callow youth...
| |||