Well, I once wrote a Perl front-end that output Fortran files with all the appropriate options set, and then recompiled the whole thing -- with a recompilation for every data point generated. It worked, but it was... inelegant.
Three things bug me about F95, which I use every day
No standardised/portable method for handling command line parameters.
Undefined behaviour for short-cutting logical ors. e.g. the behaviour of if(flag.and.function(var)) then... is undefined if flag is false and function() has side effects.
The things you *can't* use parameters for (like fixing lengths in format statements) without running fpp/cpp on the code first
No standardised meanings for
real(kind=8) x
Does that mean an 8 byte real? Or a 8 bit real? It depends on the compiler... (and yes, I know the portable solution is
real (kind=kind(0.0d0)) x
and the such like, but *thats* really ugly, compared to
Arbitrary polynomial fitting still isn't going to get you the right answer
There isn't a right answer. That my point. Give me a finite number of data points and I'll fit a function to it. It may not be the same one you fit to it, but until you come up with a criterion that makes yours right and mine wrong, mines just as good as yours, or google's.
it has some polynomial representation, albeit without a finite number of terms
Polynomials always have a finite number of terms. That's the definition of a polynomial.
But, if you didn't solve the first problem yourself, then I can see how that would not be obvious.
Why must the problems be related. In the second problem. all I'm told about the function f(x) is that it takes certain values at 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Well, there are an infinite number of functions that take those values. (Hell, there are an infinite number of polynomials that do). My function satisfies all the constraints on f, but its not the answer google are looking for. That's why, as stated, it's an idiotic puzzle
For some reason, Fortran is still used for many scientific programs, and this software probably fits in this category. Don't ask me why they chose it, though; I'm not a developer.
Brief answer: i) because most numerical weather codes are already written in Fortran. This means that people with the right scientific knowledge tend to be Fortran programmers, and makes porting a whole lot easier. ii) Fortran compilers are the ones where the most work has gone into optimising the hardcore mathematical routines. Thus, the compiled code has traditionally been faster. This may no longer be true.
I can *always* "solve" these problems with polynomial interpolation, and get any answer I care for. At the end of the process I've found a pattern and deduced the next term. If it's not the same pattern google were looking for... they should write less ambiguous / idiotic questions.
... in the mathematical sense? It strikes me that it probably isn't, since the decimal expansion of e is base dependent, and most "interesting" properties of number are not, IMHO, dependent on the number of fingers our forefathers used for counting.
Is there any method for the solution besides a brute force search and an efficient algorithm for primality testing?
President George W. Bush. HBS doesn't hand out MBAs like candy, you know
Lets look at some of the Business he's Administrated, shall we?
i) Arbusto Energy / Spectrum 7 (CEO, 1977-1986): Formed 1977, declared bankrupt, 1986. ii) Harken Energy (director, 1986-1990) : GWB implicated for insider trading and accounting practices. 1992 SEC investigation still sealed. Made loss of over $20million. iii) Texas Rangers baseball club (owner/managing partner, 1990-1994) : 383-379, for an entirely average.502 winning percentage.
So, that's two unmitigated financial disasters and a ballclub that defines "league average". If that's a model Harvard MBA student, perhaps they should consider tightening their syllabus up a little bit.
How do we know this. GWB is from a highly influential (and wealthy family). Is there any evidence/transcripts that its intelligence rather than influence that saw GWB accepted at and graduated from these prestigious institutions?
If you care about your children do not expect technology to keep them safe.
Not exclusively no. That would be stupid. But a kid with a mobile phone and a rape alarm is safer than one with neither. A kid with an RFID tag is harder to lose.
Rejecting something thats helpful because it's not a perfect solution is idiotic (especially, as in this case, when there are no perfect solutions).
Re:And now, for your delectation and delight...
on
RFID Not Just for Kids
·
· Score: 1, Funny
I strongly dislike the conveyor belt like layouts in zoos & parks which is what they frequently are these days.
You don't like theme parks. Hey, me neither. So don't go.
And now, for your delectation and delight...
on
RFID Not Just for Kids
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
... slashdotters will spot the magic phrase "RFID", and remember that this is something the hivemind has told them they're against. They will proceed to explain why a private entity using RFID tags -- entirely on its own property -- to track and locate lost children is an appalling infringement of their civil liberties.
Spielberg's film will include every big name he can sign on, spend more on Special effects than the GP of most small countries, and get his plot from "Rent-a-plot", with a catch at the end for sequels.
Actually, that's really unfair to Spielberg. Notice how there's been no ET2, no Minority Report 2, no Schindler's List 2...
As I can recall, only Raiders OTLA and Jurassic Park spawned sequels of all Spielberg's movies.
Such as this, gathered by general purpose search engine, Google, in June. Specifically, this graph. That "Other" category is not exactly setting the world on fire, is it now?
"Imagine a Beowulf cluster..." jokes are passe. The really hip respond to mentions of Donald Becker's name with oblique references to Steely Dan records.
At this point in time, if everyone used SPF, my guess is that at least 50% of spam would be blocked.
And this week's statistics-pulled-out-of-ass award goes to.... DrZaius. Congratulations, with no methodology, or data, you've just invented a statistic, and attempted to pass it off as fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I once wrote a Perl front-end that output Fortran files with all the appropriate options set, and then recompiled the whole thing -- with a recompilation for every data point generated. It worked, but it was ... inelegant.
if(flag.and.function(var)) then...
is undefined if flag is false and function() has side effects.
real(kind=8) x
Does that mean an 8 byte real? Or a 8 bit real? It depends on the compiler... (and yes, I know the portable solution is
real (kind=kind(0.0d0)) x
and the such like, but *thats* really ugly, compared to
double precision x.
Hey, I used what was open on my desktop. And it wasn't rounding, I just miscopied it.
Well, there are an infinite number of functions that take those values. (Hell, there are an infinite number of polynomials that do). My function satisfies all the constraints on f, but its not the answer google are looking for. That's why, as stated, it's an idiotic puzzle
I know. Thats what you get when you miscopy the number into Mathematica. I'll get my coat.
You don't have to tell me. I write numerical codes in Fortran 95.
Because 2147483647 is the square of 46341.
i) because most numerical weather codes are already written in Fortran. This means that people with the right scientific knowledge tend to be Fortran programmers, and makes porting a whole lot easier.
ii) Fortran compilers are the ones where the most work has gone into optimising the hardcore mathematical routines. Thus, the compiled code has traditionally been faster. This may no longer be true.
So f(5) = 2775619300. Now, why is that not a perfectly reasonable solution to this "puzzle"?
I can *always* "solve" these problems with polynomial interpolation, and get any answer I care for. At the end of the process I've found a pattern and deduced the next term. If it's not the same pattern google were looking for ... they should write less ambiguous / idiotic questions.
Nice idea, except if you've only seen the billboard, how do you know it has anything to do with Google?
... in the mathematical sense? It strikes me that it probably isn't, since the decimal expansion of e is base dependent, and most "interesting" properties of number are not, IMHO, dependent on the number of fingers our forefathers used for counting.
Is there any method for the solution besides a brute force search and an efficient algorithm for primality testing?
i) Arbusto Energy / Spectrum 7 (CEO, 1977-1986): Formed 1977, declared bankrupt, 1986.
ii) Harken Energy (director, 1986-1990) : GWB implicated for insider trading and accounting practices. 1992 SEC investigation still sealed. Made loss of over $20million.
iii) Texas Rangers baseball club (owner/managing partner, 1990-1994) : 383-379, for an entirely average
So, that's two unmitigated financial disasters and a ballclub that defines "league average". If that's a model Harvard MBA student, perhaps they should consider tightening their syllabus up a little bit.
1st Corollary : Any slashdotter who cannot spell Religion is unlikely to have informed, intelligen opinions on the subject.
Rejecting something thats helpful because it's not a perfect solution is idiotic (especially, as in this case, when there are no perfect solutions).
... slashdotters will spot the magic phrase "RFID", and remember that this is something the hivemind has told them they're against. They will proceed to explain why a private entity using RFID tags -- entirely on its own property -- to track and locate lost children is an appalling infringement of their civil liberties.
This should be good.
As I can recall, only Raiders OTLA and Jurassic Park spawned sequels of all Spielberg's movies.
Such as this, gathered by general purpose search engine, Google, in June. Specifically, this graph. That "Other" category is not exactly setting the world on fire, is it now?
"Imagine a Beowulf cluster..." jokes are passe. The really hip respond to mentions of Donald Becker's name with oblique references to Steely Dan records.
Well done.