cm0002@lemmy.world to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 13 days agoLife Hackimagemessage-square63fedilinkarrow-up1858arrow-down19
arrow-up1849arrow-down1imageLife Hackcm0002@lemmy.world to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 13 days agomessage-square63fedilink
minus-squarestebo@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up74·edit-212 days agoyou can trucate it and it still only a slightly worse approximation: 987/123 = 8.024 98/12 = 8.167 9/1 = 9.000 The last one is pretty bad you should probably not use it
minus-squareOutlierBlue@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up37·12 days ago9/1 is approximately 8, for extremely large values of 8.
minus-squaresomedev@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up17·12 days agoFor that last one, how bad are we talking? I need to know soon, I have some important banking software I need to develop.
minus-squarestebo@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up14·12 days agoI wouldn’t use it for precise calculations at NASA, but for banking stuff I think it would be fine :)
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up3·12 days agoIt depends on the scale of the thing you’re using it for.
minus-squarepacology@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·12 days agoHave you considered running for Indiana governor? You have the right mindset. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill
minus-squareNeverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8·12 days agoNah, the engineer probably designed it with a safety factor. You could probably even go 9/0 and be perfectly safe ;)
minus-squarestebo@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·12 days agowhat about 8/1 would that be save?
minus-squarestebo@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up8·edit-212 days agoBy the way guys, a very similar approximation for 8, which also starts at 9.000 for n=1, but quickly gets much closer to 8 for increasing n, is: exp{-2(n-1)} + 8 It approaches 8 about as fast as the above method but this one has a simple formula that is usable in python etc.
minus-squarehumanspiral@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down1·12 days ago16/2 is an almost exact replacement for 8. OP’s name includes Fermat, and so he’s probably smarter than me though.
you can trucate it and it still only a slightly worse approximation:
987/123 = 8.024
98/12 = 8.167
9/1 = 9.000
The last one is pretty bad you should probably not use it
9/1 is approximately 8, for extremely large values of 8.
Hello, fellow old nerd.
9/1 ≈ 8
For that last one, how bad are we talking? I need to know soon, I have some important banking software I need to develop.
I wouldn’t use it for precise calculations at NASA, but for banking stuff I think it would be fine :)
It depends on the scale of the thing you’re using it for.
Have you considered running for Indiana governor? You have the right mindset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill
Nah, the engineer probably designed it with a safety factor. You could probably even go 9/0 and be perfectly safe ;)
what about 8/1 would that be save?
Don’t cut corners
By the way guys, a very similar approximation for 8, which also starts at 9.000 for n=1, but quickly gets much closer to 8 for increasing n, is:
exp{-2(n-1)} + 8It approaches 8 about as fast as the above method but this one has a simple formula that is usable in python etc.
16/2 is an almost exact replacement for 8. OP’s name includes Fermat, and so he’s probably smarter than me though.