Thread: Calculating S in C task

Originally Posted by Overworked_PhD

Okay, but it's funny how some of the people on here called me an idiot, yet these same people can't produce, in this case, a less buggy solution.

So because we called you an idiot for making an idiotic claim, now WE have to somehow prove WE can do what YOU claimed? Wow, you really are an idiot.

PS: Yes, I am talking to you.


Quzah.

Originally Posted by Overworked_PhD

Wow, that is another intelligent and well thought out post. Not really, but whatever.

You're hardly one to talk. We're yet to see an intelligent post from you. Emphasis on intelligent.

Originally Posted by claudiu

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.

Originally Posted by Adak

because, his program has produced correct factorials for 30!, 50!, 70! and 100!

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.

It's funny because I had that feeling too.

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.