http://qs1969.pair.com?node_id=1085832


in reply to Re: At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious about Roman Numerals
in thread At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious about Roman Numerals

I too am doing the popcorn munching. I doubt I will ever be able to use what I am reading about. I don't work on things that are that involved. I do understand the curiousness of the choice.

However, I recall that when I was working at Cray Research back in the 90's, they took a bunch of very expensive computing time to calculate pi out to some ridiculously huge number of decimal places. Set a world record in doing so at the time if I recall correctly. I also recall that we were in the middle of one of those crises (oil?, unemployment? outsourcing?) and thinking that the very expensive compute time could have been spent on one or another of those intractable problems. I don't know what was learned from the exercise in pi, I presume something(perhaps mistakenly). I figure that in this case, the subject-matter is of interest to someone, and they find it challenging. Good for them. I am learning along the way, and ain't gonna look the gift-horse in the mouth... :-)

...the majority is always wrong, and always the last to know about it...
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results...
  • Comment on Re^2: At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious about Roman Numerals

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: At the risk of saying something stupid-but-obvious about Roman Numerals
by sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on May 12, 2014 at 23:46 UTC

    Funny that you should mention Pi.   When I worked at Amdahl, back in the day, a program to calculate digits-of-pi was apparently one of their burn-in tests.   Or something like that.   I seem to vaguely recall them getting some press at one time about the number of digits they had helped calculate.

    No horse-evaluations here, either.