| |
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....
|
| |
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 ... :) |
| |
Monte Carlos
Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 359 |
Hey, the sun is nice outside !
Monte |
| |
Copyfault
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 478 |
@enthusi: wonder if all axioms in math are really "obvious" as you put it...
someone at the university once said: "in math there's only 'if-then'-phrases"; and he was f**king right!
What's really interesting about math is its consequences for the real world, that it _can_ be misused as a language to predict certain things (mostly values, that is;)) Ofcourse this comes from the chosen axioms, as they are mostly inspired by problems in ancient physics. So "inspired by the inner workings of nature" might be a good phrase to describe the character of math axioms...
But let's better watch the sun outside - it gives less headache;)) |
| |
JackAsser
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 2014 |
axiom = atomic (as in non-dividable ;) ) assumption imo.
Also don't forget Gödel's incompletness theorem which actually proves that based on the axioms in a closed system there will be equations/formulations/explanations/theses that are true but in-provable. Getting really wacked here I'm thinking of applying that theorem to universe itself. Imagine physics one day finds all the "axioms" in nature, that would direcly mean that the will be stuff in universe that are true, but still not provable. Such as the creation, where it came from etc. Stuff like that could very well be inprovable but still very true if you consider Gödel's theorem on universal scale. (perhaps). :D
ps. This are getting really out of topic now and I think it's just a way for us "others" to try to make a point or catch some of Graham's brilliant glow with his algorithm. Actually only Graham have stayed in topic and actually delivered more that just crap talk. :D </asslicking & appreciation> |
| |
_V_
Account closed
Registered: Jan 2002
Posts: 124 |
I agree that this is getting out-of-topic, which started because I was defending an 80s math teacher and the constatation (nothing you can do about it, sorry :) that, with current methods, you cannot calculate pure irrationals explicitly in this lifetime. I could start debating the true nature of numbers, Gödel's theorem, infinity, limits, whether the universe is discrete or continuous, the validity of quantum mechanics, etc. but I would recommend everyone to consult scientific literature for this.
One last thing, though. Graham: saying that infinity doesn't exist, is saying that purely irrational numbers don't exist. Or limits, or series, or gradients, or fractals, or...
For example, if infinity doesn't exist, then we couldn't possibly calculate
lim (n->+Inf) 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + ... + (1/2)^n
now could we? |
| |
Cruzer
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1048 |
Talking about off-topic, how about interpretation of quantum mechanics anyone? :o)
I'm mostly in favor of the Many Worlds Interpretation, even though I live in Copenhagen. |
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
MOOOONK! WHERE ARE YOU?! |
| |
Spinball
Registered: Sep 2002
Posts: 88 |
Quote: Talking about off-topic, how about interpretation of quantum mechanics anyone? :o)
I'm mostly in favor of the Many Worlds Interpretation, even though I live in Copenhagen.
"I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos." |
| |
Graham
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2002
Posts: 990 |
@Cruzer: I also favor the many worlds stuff. Once I saw some prof dude explain that the super-states of quantums can be interpreted as interference between two worlds which are very close to each other.
Btw, I did the 16.0 bits -> 8.8 bits square root routine, but it's untested yet. Since the routine is more than twice as big as those routines up here, I think testing is needed :D |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 - Next |
