Timeline for How can a computer deal with real numbers
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 1, 2021 at 18:59 | vote | accept | Robert | ||
| S Jan 30, 2021 at 16:00 | history | suggested | Andrey Tyukin |
Tagged with 'computer-algebra'
|
|
| Jan 29, 2021 at 18:30 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 30, 2021 at 16:00 | |||||
| Jan 29, 2021 at 15:19 | answer | added | Yakk | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jan 29, 2021 at 6:41 | comment | added | Acccumulation | "This is only one of the uncountable examples out there." Technically, the set of examples is countable :) (assuming that the number of symbols that can be used for an example is finite, and each example uses a finite number of such symbols). | |
| S Jan 29, 2021 at 0:12 | history | suggested | iandotkelly | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
I can't find excelate in a dictionary
|
| Jan 29, 2021 at 0:00 | answer | added | user131334 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 28, 2021 at 16:25 | comment | added | cjnash |
@Robert little nitpick: "for instance, 3–√×3–√ is equal to 3. This is only one of the countable examples out there."
|
|
| Jan 28, 2021 at 15:40 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 29, 2021 at 0:12 | |||||
| Jan 28, 2021 at 14:59 | comment | added | chasly - supports Monica | Note that computer languages are not, as you state, " limited to very few decimal places". They can all perform or be programmed to perform arbitrary precision arithmetic en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary-precision_arithmetic - The other subject you mention is Computer Algebra en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra | |
| Jan 28, 2021 at 14:05 | answer | added | Cephalopod | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 28, 2021 at 7:34 | answer | added | Pseudonym♦ | timeline score: 19 | |
| Jan 28, 2021 at 5:11 | answer | added | VDZ | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 28, 2021 at 2:33 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Jan 27, 2021 at 23:55 | answer | added | gnasher729 | timeline score: -1 | |
| Jan 27, 2021 at 22:09 | comment | added | John L. | As found and verified by Alan Turing and many others, whatever result a human can obtain with paper, pencil, and rubber, a computer should be able to simulate it. | |
| Jan 27, 2021 at 22:03 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | "a computer would have a fun time calculating the square root of 3, diving 4 by it, subtracting the square root of 3 from the result and multiplying everything again by the square root of 3" That's where you're wrong: a computer can be clever and manipulate expressions symbolically, just as we do. Computer algebra systems are far more intricate than you give them credit for. | |
| Jan 27, 2021 at 20:28 | answer | added | Yuval Filmus | timeline score: 38 | |
| Jan 27, 2021 at 19:47 | comment | added | Yuval Filmus | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_algebra_system | |
| Jan 27, 2021 at 18:55 | comment | added | user114966 | Well, one of the problems is, I guess, that in general we don't know what we want. What is better: $1 + \frac 1 {\sqrt 2}$ or $1 + \frac {\sqrt 2} 2$ or $\frac {2 + \sqrt 2} 2$? Note that they all are somewhat complicated expressions; if we are fine with them, why are we not fine with intermediate results? There are more complicated examples where humans would have troubles. E.g. $\sqrt{3 + 2 \sqrt{2}} = 1 + \sqrt{2}$. While the second form is simpler, I don't think many people will notice that the first one is not optimal. | |
| Jan 27, 2021 at 18:39 | comment | added | Dan Doel | Wolfram Alpha can figure it out | |
| Jan 27, 2021 at 18:36 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 29, 2021 at 18:25 | |||||
| Jan 27, 2021 at 18:33 | history | asked | Robert | CC BY-SA 4.0 |