| |
Trifox
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2006
Posts: 108 |
calculating of square roots ?
hi all, for my newest project i am in urgent need to calculate the length of a 2d vector, reminding pythagorian math i remember that i have to calculate the roots of a fixed point (8bits.8bits) number, how can that be mastered in a convenient way ?!?!?!
thx
|
|
... 92 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
Tch
Account closed
Registered: Sep 2004
Posts: 512 |
"Don´t think too much about things,it will influence the outcome.
Thus there is no absolute truth."
Sorry,read this somewhere and I couldn´t resist. ;) |
| |
Graham
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 990 |
Quantum theory stays assumed right until somebody proves it wrong. That's the way of science.
Anyway, talking about "infinitely long" or "unlimited decimals" makes me oppose. There is no such timepoint called "infinity". Every point-of-time you can come up with is still a pretty finite point-of-time and the same applies to decimals. Every decimal number you can write down is a decimal with limited length, or else it is no decimal anymore. (Infinity might be weird, but unboundedness is not. And only the 2nd one exists.) |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11497 |
i think we should point monk at this thread. |
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 679 |
I agree with me and graham here :)
If you wait infinitely long, well you do wait infinitely long.
No 'result' ever :)
Edit: Oh, I agree with groepaz too |
| |
Copyfault
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 483 |
Speaking of math and infinity...
Some fields medalist (this is a mathmatician with some kind of noble price) once said that there is no characteristic 0 in the real world, but rather a finite characteristic within the number fields we use for calc'ing things...
might be if we take a big enough prime ;)) |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1049 |
As far as I know, noone has ever been able to come up with a proper definition for numbers, (i.e. what is 0 and 1, etc.), so they probably don't even exist in the real world. |
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 679 |
yeah, like love <3 |
| |
Copyfault
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 483 |
@Cruzer: there are Peano's axioms which give us a good start at least for a definition of a set we usually refer to as "natural numbers". The funny thing about it is that even today there are some mathmaticians who consider the element "0" to be part of \N, whereas others do not!
So you're not that wrong when saying there's no proper def;)) Btw, isn't all pure math disjoint to the real world? |
| |
Graham
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 990 |
Well if you make something like numbers up, they "exist". You can easily come up with lot's of different axioms which are all equally right. The only thing which is leading us to the current axioms used for math is the optimizations towards an orthogonal math with as few as possible extra rules for operations. |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1049 |
Isn't the problem with axioms that it's basically assumptions. So when you build something on a foundation of axioms, the whole validity of what you build up relies on assumptions. And since math is built on axioms like "we assume that there is something called 0 and 1" which noone can define, it's just assumed that they exist, then the validity of math itself cannot be proven.
Or maybe I'm just making up excuses why I had so low math grades in school. :) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 - Next |
