They called you that because you were making statements that were worth that appellative, also insulting everyone else's experience and intelligence along the way. So please spare us the whining.
They called you that because you were making statements that were worth that appellative, also insulting everyone else's experience and intelligence along the way. So please spare us the whining.
I'm being honest.
I am dying to know what Adak thinks of that code. He is probably to nice a guy to comment on it though since he promised he won't embarrass you.
Well, it's time to serve up a jumbo size of
*CROW*,
because, his program has produced correct factorials for 30!, 50!, 70! and 100!
I compared the output with the data from wikipedia here:
Factorial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have to say, I expected just what Salem reported, and just ran it through on Turbo C (a 16 bit compiler), to hurry it along. I don't know enough about factorials to look at them and just say "Oh, that can't be right".
The only inaccuracy I"ve noted in the above factorials, are in rounding of the last digit (upward if it is 5 or above).
Congratulations, Overworked_PhD!
I will post a screen shot of the testing output screen, so you can see what I'm talking about, as an edit to this post.
Last edited by Adak; 04-20-2010 at 11:58 PM.
Okay, so even if he did get the correct results he still hasn't showed how to store that mighty number in an integer type variable in C, which was the original argument.
So because it gave you three correct values out of 80, that means it's correct? That's a pretty crappy percentile. Plus, since there is no actual code shown, it kinda just looks like you've been trolling as two different logins. Go ahead and reply on either login though and tell me I'm wrong and be sure to not show any code to back up your absurd claims.
I can fake a screenshot in five seconds to claim anything I want. That doesn't mean it's true.
Quzah.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
It's funny because I had that feeling too.
Thank you, anon. You sure know how to recognize different types of trees from quite a long way away.
The jpg image has the cut and paste factorials from Wiki, (and one other site I forgot to link to), and for these numbers, there are no strings of zero's, listed.
I believe (but can't confirm), that PhD's program is Sterling's algorithm for factorial approximation. In the numbers listed, it is accurate, except for two things:
1) His print out stops after six digits of precision.
2) The sixth digit after the decimal point is rounded, if it's 5 or higher.
I don't know if the precision of this program could be extended easily, or not.
I'm sure PhD can tell us more about this, if he chooses.
I chose these numbers because they are beyond the maximum value of a double in Turbo C - a true challenge to his bold claim.
These are the ONLY numbers I tested, Quzah. No, I'm not a double.
Last edited by Adak; 04-21-2010 at 12:24 AM.
So far it's all mumbo jumbo. No code, no proof. Anyone could have printf-ed these results. I can write a fast factorial too. It's going to be 100 printf statements in a long ass switch. You give me an integer 1-100 I'll give you the factorial.
25 1.5511210043 × 10^25
50 3.0414093202 × 10^64
70 1.1978571670 × 10^100
100 9.3326215444 × 10^157
There are the zeros. A ton of them!
Approximation for a factorial is just BS. Factorial is a function defined on a DISCRETE COUNTABLE SET, like the set of positive integers. As a result, it has a DISCRETE value. Approximations of factorials through continuous functions are simply not what this thread was about or what the OP was asking for.