|
I never said it was new; I just found it funny (but accurate...)
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
No, but every now and then I sort of miss it. At least a little bit.
|
|
|
|
|
No, but the better jokes have been migrated.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Not according to IEEE 754 :p
|
|
|
|
|
IEEE 754 deals with finite-precision floating-point numbers, so Pi cannot be exactly represented in a manner compatible with it. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I've studied physics and there, we got methods to get right answers from values with finite precision B)
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9167057 wrote: 've studied physics
By a strange coincidence, so did I. I also studied Numerical Analysis.
The issue here is that Pi cannot be represented to adequate accuracy using IEEE 754 types. This has implications for argument reduction, e.g. for the trigonometrical functions.
If the closest representation of Pi in IEEE 754 is Pi+dPi, the argument reduction for a value x will calculate x' = x - 2 * N * (Pi + dPi), giving a reduced argument that is in error by at least 2 * N * dPi. This can be significant even for small values of N, e.g. around the zeroes of a function. It is possible that not even the sign of the calculated result is correct!
Some mitigations are possible, e.g. representing Pi as a sum of a few parts, but for large N the only fix is to use a highly precise form of Pi.
I enclose a link to an article that discusses this issue in more detail than most people will ever need... https://redirect.cs.umbc.edu/~phatak/645/supl/Ng-ArgReduction.pdf
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm perfectly aware of the fact that IEE 754 ROUNDS floats as you can't, for obvious reasons, represent them exactly.
However, if we really want to hammer details here, how would you represent Pi in binary EXACTLY?
The most obvious approach would be a classical LongInt: that is a number array with each number representing a digit. But the Pi digits we're talking about are decimal so now we don't get every possible piece of binary data! Well, sure, you could calculate & represent Pi as hexadecimal digits but what's with the underlying computing system? RAM is, generally, organized in pages (on a system you would calculate Pi anyway and I sure as hell wouldn't do this on an MCU with a raw memory model) and you don't know how those pages are laid out, you don't even know if you can fill those pages!
My point is, if you really don't want to take this with a wink, if you really want to go into the details in a pedantic manner, the statement in the OP isn't nearly as clear as if you take the basic idea and run with it.
I'm somewhere between a physicist and a software engineer, not only do I need pedantry in my job, I love it! Well, I don't technically need it, I got co-workers proving day after day that you don't need discipline, that clearing up the mess arising from handwaving important details but I'd rather pour effort into fun parts of the job and clearing up a mess I've let lying around isn't fun.
However, this is the lounge here, not a specification meeting, and the OP got a fantastic idea in theory. So I'm treating this one with a wink. Without winks, arbitrary precision doesn't make sense. Without winks, you need a precision up to a fixed point. This point depends on the use case, of course, but there's still a finite point to which we need numbers to be precise. Including measurement results, including Pi. So if you really want to get into the practical implications of all this, then Pi is effectively finite.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually all copyrights, trademarks, and patents would be invalid, as pi existed since the Big Bang (if not earlier) thus rendering all IP unoriginal.
You're still screwed on the malware and defaming scientology fronts though.
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Moore - Chicago wrote: Actually all copyrights, trademarks, and patents would be invalid, as pi existed since the Big Bang (if not earlier) thus rendering all IP unoriginal.
I beg to differ. Pi has existed as a concept, but it is the expression of the idea that is subject to copyright. One cannot claim copyright just because one has defined a generating function for a book; one must actually write the book.
Peter Moore - Chicago wrote: You're still screwed on the malware and defaming scientology fronts though.
Wouldn't the defamation of {Paganism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Taoism, Hinduism, Scientology, ...} (the order is more-or-less chronological) be countered by the equally present works in support of said religions? 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: I beg to differ. Pi has existed as a concept, but it is the expression of the idea that is subject to copyright. One cannot claim copyright just because one has defined a generating function for a book; one must actually write the book.
You make it seem as if a concepts must be expressed as a physical text (a digit sequence considered to be text) to be copyrightable.
If I tell a story, one that could be a short story or novel, without writing it down, is this story not copyrightable because it only exists as a concept between every time I tell it? If you write my story down, could you claim copyright on it, because you were the one to write it down?
Could pi be physically expressed in a non-textual form? E.g. can the relationship between the circumference and the diameter of a circle be expressed graphically? Would you say that a graphical expression of pi still is just "a concept"?
We saw a related issue fifty years ago: Ritchie's patent on the setUID mechanism of Unix. His first application specified the mechanism in c code, but software patents were not accepted at the time; they were viewed something like "just a concept". So for the patent application, he had to design an electronic circuit realizing the same logical operation as his source code; that was accepted for the patent. I don't know if the circuit was ever built (I guess lots of soldering iron guys have done so, 'just for the fun of it'), but it was not required for the patent application; a schematic was enough. Graphics was OK, a textual rendition of the logic was not.
I certainly know that saying software patents could have some merit is extremely non-PC in most programmer environments. Yet, the setUID circuit makes a fascinating philosophical question. Should we reject the setUID circuit because we reject software patents and the logic of the circuit can easily be expressed in software? Or, are we willing to accept any software patent as long as it is - for the sake of the patent application - expressed as a circuit? (And satisfy other reasonable newness and invention height requirements) Or is a software patent acceptable as long as is can be expressed as a circuit, even if it in the patent application appears as source code?
There are nuances between patents and copyrighted works; those are inessential for the philosophical question of when a "concept" turns into something that can be protected. The setUID patent expired long ago; even that is inessential for the principal discussion on software patents.
|
|
|
|
|
trønderen wrote: You make it seem as if a concepts must be expressed as a physical text (a digit sequence considered to be text) to be copyrightable.
Pi is a description of a generating function that can produce any and all finite texts; it is not the text itself. A physical analogy might be between a printing press and a copy of a book. Possession of a printing press does not constitute copyright violation.
trønderen wrote: I certainly know that saying software patents could have some merit is extremely non-PC in most programmer environments. ...
I take the unpopular view that any description of a "new and non-obvious" mechanism - whether in software, hardware, a detailed description of an algorithm, or a detailed blueprint - should be patentable. The effort to develop a new algorithm is, in many cases, considerable, and there is no reason why this effort should not be encouraged and rewarded.
My problem with software patents is that the patent offices are generally not well equipped to determine what is "new and non-obvious" in software. This has led to absurdities such as a patent on XORing a cursor on to a screen, the issue being that this was so obvious to a professional programmer that no one bothered documenting it. IIRC, the patent was eventually revoked because it was shown to have been used in software that predated the patent application.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got this McAfee bloatware recently with my new Dell laptop. I'm uninstalling it on behalf of AVAST. In my verry first job a was indirectly working for McAfee.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
I remember when John McAffee was in all the trouble in Brazil and the company, which he no longer owned made a public statement that they were considering renaming the product. McAffee's response was please do, I don't want to be associated with your crappy software.
|
|
|
|
|
(Mostly because my handwriting is illegible - heck sometimes I can't even read it.)
And I learned a long time ago, that sticking to the market leader in "sheets of labels"* is the only way to go. The cheap ones just cause more problems than they cure.
Needless to say, you can't use Inkjet labels in a Laser or vice versa so when I bought a laser printer I threw out the old labels (gave them to a mate) and bought all new.
So Sunday, I swear at Word again - every year I have to do this, why do they make it so stupid to do label sheets - and print my labels. And they are terrible. They aren't fused, they are smeared, missing bits, just useless. They aren't even feeding well - crumpled leading edge.
Which is weird, because the big bonus with a laser is you turn it on, it prints immediately, you unplug it for months again.
But not this time. I double check the settings and they all look good, even remembered to select "thick paper" before I printed. I try again - same rubbish. Damnit, the printer is hardly used!
I try again on plain paper ... and it's perfect. Strange.
Did you know that laser labels only last 2 to 3 years no matter how you store them? Nor did I.
Bought a small pack of new labels, delivered today, printed perfect first time. Old labels? In the bin ...
So if you use Laser labels, try to remember when you bought them!
* Hint: rhymes with "Pavery".
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Can get worse: glue from label sticks to laser cylinder (don't know the technical name for it) and starts smudging all your prints until you toss the darn cartridge and there goes your 100 bucks 
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
Been there, done that!
|
|
|
|
|
<snark> Bah humbug looks better every time I read one of these Christmas discussions 
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
Obligatory xkcd: Christmas Plans
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Or…
Just print all the labels in the pack and use them for the next decade. No annual fiddling with the printer. No need to buy labels every couple of years.
No need to post a woe-is-me to the lounge.
The benefits are endless!
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
That only works so long as everyone you send cards to lives for the next decade, you don't fall out with them, and they don't move house. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Your post made me look at the labels I've been using for a few years now. Yes, the same packet, stored in a desk drawer. I can't decipher the date stamp completely, it's either 16/04/13 or 16/04/18.
The box says "Multipurpose labels Laser/Inkjet/Copier", and I've used them in a laser printer (hp1600) and various inkjets without any problems at all. I can't imagine a copier being much different from a laser printer.
Unistat brand, "Made in Australia from imported material."
Cheers,
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
We stopped sending cards years ago apart from to a few select people we never see
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming “Wow! What a Ride!" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif)
ing spammer enabling scum.
