| |
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....
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
i think we should point monk at this thread. |
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 677 |
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: 478 |
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: 1048 |
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: 677 |
yeah, like love <3 |
| |
Copyfault
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 478 |
@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: 1048 |
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. :) |
| |
enthusi
Registered: May 2004
Posts: 677 |
Doesnt matter where you put 0.
Well, thats not due to impotence but just a matter of convention.
And nothing is or ever will be more precise than math. The only true selfconsistent philosophy you will find.
Its flawless in itself ;)
And the axioms needed are pretty basic and less than one might think.
"basic" as in what people like to call 'obvious'.
Of all things you cant question math :)
And second least questionable is physics btw :)
And both are on top of every critics list for some strange reason.
edit:
and before someone claims that it can be questioned: sure, but nothing is less questionable. Even the assumption that you exist leads to more open ends and inconsistencies than math. |
| |
Trifox
Account closed
Registered: Mar 2006
Posts: 108 |
0 is the neutral element of addition, where 1 is the neutral element of multiplikation ... both operators together form a nice body ... :) |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 - Next |
