17 Dec
2003
17 Dec
'03
11:21 a.m.
Somebody just showed me "Google calculator". Go to google and enter any of
the following:
0xf342 - 54
38891 in octal
10kg * 4m/s^2
26tbsp
I guess I can throw away my 27S now. :-) --Patrick
17 Dec
17 Dec
11:28 a.m.
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Patrick Rigney wrote:
Somebody just showed me "Google calculator".
Go to google and enter any of
the following:
0xf342 - 54
38891 in octal
10kg * 4m/s^2
26tbsp
I guess I can throw away my 27S now. :-) --Patrick
G00GLE ROCKS!!!
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]
11:37 a.m.
yes, but can it do RPN?
re: google calculator & "google rocks"
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
2:32 p.m.
Quothe Vintage Computer Festival, from writings of Wed, Dec 17, 2003
at 02:28:25PM -0800:
G00GLE ROCKS!!!
So it appears, but remember, Google is one of the companies on Lou
Dobbs' list of companies that are outsourcing work to China. Also,
let's not forget about the connection between Goodle and spooks in the
U.S. govt.
--
Copyright (C) 2003 R. D. Davis The difference between humans & other animals:
All Rights Reserved an unnatural belief that we're above Nature &
rdd(a)rddavis.org 410-744-4900 her other creatures, using dogma to justify such
http://www.rddavis.org beliefs and to justify much human cruelty.
11:43 a.m.
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Patrick Rigney wrote:
Somebody just showed me "Google calculator".
Go to google and enter any of
the following:
0xf342 - 54
38891 in octal
10kg * 4m/s^2
26tbsp
I guess I can throw away my 27S now. :-) --Patrick
Their "complete instructions" suck. They don't even list all of the
operators! (such as your use above of "in octal".
OK,
what is the IEEE floating point representation of PI?
"3.1.459 in binary" does NOT work.
12:17 p.m.
At 02:43 PM 12/17/03 -0800, you wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Patrick Rigney wrote:
I don't know but 355/113 is easy to remember and is accuarate to about 6
places. That's what we used to use on computer languages that didn't have
PI predefined. (Boy I'm dating myself!)
Joe
Somebody just showed me "Google
calculator". Go to google and enter any of
the following:
0xf342 - 54
38891 in octal
10kg * 4m/s^2
26tbsp
I guess I can throw away my 27S now. :-) --Patrick
Their "complete instructions" suck. They don't even list all of the
operators! (such as your use above of "in octal".
OK,
what is the IEEE floating point representation of PI?
"3.1.459 in binary" does NOT work.
1:46 p.m.
>> Somebody just showed me "Google
calculator". Go to google and enter any of
>Their "complete instructions" suck. They don't even list all of the
>operators! (such as your use above of "in octal".
>OK,
>what is the IEEE floating point representation of PI?
>"3.1.459 in binary" does NOT work.
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Joe wrote:
I don't know but 355/113 is easy to remember
and is accuarate to about 6
places. That's what we used to use on computer languages that didn't have
PI predefined. (Boy I'm dating myself!)
the Google calculator will not show the binary of that, either.
Presumably it does NOT support any floating point in anything but decimal.
1:54 p.m.
On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, at 05:17 PM, Joe wrote:
At 02:43 PM 12/17/03 -0800, you wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Patrick Rigney wrote:
>> Somebody just showed me "Google calculator". Go to google and enter
>> any of
>> the following:
>> 0xf342 - 54
>> 38891 in octal
>> 10kg * 4m/s^2
>> 26tbsp
>> I guess I can throw away my 27S now. :-) --Patrick
>
> Their "complete instructions" suck. They don't even list all of the
> operators! (such as your use above of "in octal".
>
> OK,
> what is the IEEE floating point representation of PI?
> "3.1.459 in binary" does NOT work.
Google thinks 335 / 113 = 2.96460177
I don't know but 355/113 is easy to remember and is accuarate to
about 6
places. That's what we used to use on computer languages that didn't
have
PI predefined. (Boy I'm dating myself!)
Joe
2:08 p.m.
> I don't know but 355/113 is easy to
remember and is accuarate to
> about 6
> places. That's what we used to use on computer languages that didn't
> have
> PI predefined. (Boy I'm dating myself!)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Ron Hudson wrote:
Google thinks 335 / 113 = 2.96460177
but it thinks that 355/113 is 3.14159292
AND IT STILL WON'T show binary for anything but integers!
3:06 p.m.
On Wednesday, December 17, 2003, at 07:08 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
Arrgh Dislexia again!
> I
don't know but 355/113 is easy to remember and is accuarate to
> about 6
> places. That's what we used to use on computer languages that didn't
> have
> PI predefined. (Boy I'm dating myself!)
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Ron Hudson wrote:
> Google thinks 335 / 113 = 2.96460177
but it thinks that 355/113 is 3.14159292
AND IT STILL WON'T show binary for anything but integers!
18 Dec
18 Dec
1:49 a.m.
On Wed, 17 Dec
2003, Ron Hudson wrote:
> Google thinks 335 / 113 = 2.96460177
Arrgh Dislexia again!
>
> but it thinks that 355/113 is 3.14159292 
17 Dec
17 Dec
1:47 p.m.
what is the IEEE floating point representation of PI?
Not that I can help you get it out of google, but...pi in hex to 32
significant digits is 3.243f6a8885a308d313198a2e0370734. This gives
(1)10010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000110000100011010... as
mantissa (the 1 in parens is the hidden bit). The exponent value
depends on the number size (because that determines the exponent field
bias). The upshot of all this:
(single) 0 10000000 10010010000111111011011
(double) 0 10000000000 1001001000011111101101010100010001000010110100011000
By way of comparison, in binary,
22/7 = 11.0010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010...
355/113 = 11.0010010000111111011011110000001001000011111101101111000...
pi = 11.0010010000111111011010101000100010000101101000110000100...
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
5:54 p.m.
New subject: OT: Google PI, I never knew...
By now, you all know what happens if you search "miserable failure" in
Google.
But, if you go to
www.pi.nersc.gov
neither "miserable", NOR "failure" occur in the first 4 billion bits
of
PI. Although "google" does, as does "pi" and "cctalk"
7528
days inactive
7529
days old
12 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
patrick＠evocative.com -
rdd＠rddavis.org -
rigdonj＠cfl.rr.com -
ron.hudson＠sbcglobal.net -
vcf＠siconic.com