cm0002@lemmy.world to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 2 days agoLife Hacklemmy.mlimagemessage-square62fedilinkarrow-up1826arrow-down19cross-posted to: funny@lemmy.ml
arrow-up1817arrow-down1imageLife Hacklemmy.mlcm0002@lemmy.world to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 2 days agomessage-square62fedilinkcross-posted to: funny@lemmy.ml
minus-squarestebo@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up71·edit-21 day 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-squarehumanspiral@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up3·15 hours ago16/2 is an almost exact replacement for 8. OP’s name includes Fermat, and so he’s probably smarter than me though.
minus-squareOutlierBlue@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up32·1 day ago9/1 is approximately 8, for extremely large values of 8.
minus-squareNeverclear@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·20 hours 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-up2·19 hours agowhat about 8/1 would that be save?
minus-squarepacology@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11·23 hours agoHave you considered running for Indiana governor? You have the right mindset. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill
minus-squaresomedev@aussie.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up17·1 day 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-up13·1 day 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-up3·1 day agoIt depends on the scale of the thing you’re using it for.
minus-squarestebo@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkarrow-up7·edit-223 hours 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.
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
16/2 is an almost exact replacement for 8. OP’s name includes Fermat, and so he’s probably smarter than me though.
9/1 ≈ 8
9/1 is approximately 8, for extremely large values of 8.
Hello, fellow old nerd.
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
Have you considered running for Indiana governor? You have the right mindset.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_pi_bill
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.
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.