 | | Re: Contacting LEGO Australia —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) well, not EXACTLY, no, but I did hear of a draw that had these winning numbers: 3 9 14 15 26 53 So there you go (the 9 is out of place but other than that it's pi to 10 digits). (22 years ago, 7-Mar-02, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Contacting LEGO Australia —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) numbers: (...) Close, but actually pi to 10 digits is 3.141592654!! ROSCO (Pickin those nits again!) (22 years ago, 7-Mar-02, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contacting LEGO Australia —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Whoops! c /pi to 10 digits/the first 10 digits of pi/ (...) "Correct", since the next digit after 2653 is >4 so the 53 rounds up to 54... But ACTUALLY INcorrect since " 3.141592654!! " is actually an invalid arithmetic expression. You cannot (...) (22 years ago, 7-Mar-02, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contacting LEGO Australia —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) Bzzzt. The factorial (and double factorial, !!) can be extended to real & complex arguments, as discussed here: (URL)See your nit(1) and raise you one. (2) (...) I'll be seeing that hand, please!!! [1] ROSCO [1] No, I don't know of a triple (...) (22 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contacting LEGO Australia —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) I guess I shoulda looked harder: (URL) (22 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Contacting LEGO Australia —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | (...) Just don't go to a quintuple factorial: "Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of a diseased mind" -Terry Pratchett (Reaper Man) Cheers Richie (22 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contacting LEGO Australia —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | (...) While that may be true, you're not claiming that an approximation of pi is 3.141592654!! are you? Cheers Richie (who's happy to use 3.1 or 25/8 as an approximation.) (22 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Contacting LEGO Australia —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) Certainly! Just not a very good one...although it's somewhere betwee 3 & 8, so it's in the ball park... ROSCO (22 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Contacting LEGO Australia —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | | | (...) ...but if the approximation's nearer to 8, your ball park could have a lot of surplus turf Cheers Richie (who wonders whether they turf entire ball parks anyway...) (22 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Contacting LEGO Australia —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Yes, except for the dirt parts of the infield (first and third base lines, the first to third swath, the pitchers mound, the part from the mound to home plate, etc.) At least in Major League parks they do, unless it's astroturf they are using (...) (22 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Contacting LEGO Australia —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | (...) so (...) 8?) A quick calculation gives about 3.32 (but I could have stuffed it up) which isn't the best approximation of pi I've ever seen, but baseball's a silly game, anyway... ROSCO (22 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contacting LEGO Australia —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) an EXTENSION of factorial to reals and complex numbers... NOT that factorial itself works with reals. You're holding a busted flush. (22 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contacting LEGO Australia —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) 54... (...) Double factorial equation (8) clearly states "Similarly, the double factorial can be extended to complex arguments as: [eqn image that I can't be bothered linking to]", similarly Factorial eqn (7). Which by my book means these (...) (22 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | nits! (that is, Nits factorial) (was re contacting Lego Australia) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) It does indeed vary. By my book it's clear as day that an extension of something means the original something *doesn't* apply in the extended area. (22 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: nits! (that is, Nits factorial) (was re contacting Lego Australia) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | (...) Fine, Lar, but the eqn I cited defines z!! for all complex z[1], so 3.141592654!! *is* a valid expression, whether you wanna call it double factorial or not. ROSCO [1] In fact, it doesn't - it erroneously uses x on the right side of the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
