On Sun, Oct 08, 2017 at 11:10:06PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote:
> On Oct 08 11:31:16, o...@drijf.net wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 02:12:01PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote:
> >
> > > Isn't "4 * a(1)" a more natural incarnation of pi than "2 * a(2^1)"?
> >
> > The point of this example is to (also)
On Oct 08 11:31:16, o...@drijf.net wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 02:12:01PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote:
>
> > Isn't "4 * a(1)" a more natural incarnation of pi than "2 * a(2^1)"?
>
> The point of this example is to (also) show that a() works on very
> large numbers.
My itch is that 4 * a(1) _
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 02:12:01PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote:
> Isn't "4 * a(1)" a more natural incarnation of pi than "2 * a(2^1)"?
The point of this example is to (also) show that a() works on very
large numbers.
-Otto
>
> Jan
>
>
> Index: bc.1
>
On Fri, Oct 06, 2017 at 12:12:01PM +, Jan Stary wrote:
> Isn't "4 * a(1)" a more natural incarnation of pi than "2 * a(2^1)"?
That's indeed the most simple formula with regard to (inverse)
trigonometric functions.
Isn't "4 * a(1)" a more natural incarnation of pi than "2 * a(2^1)"?
Jan
Index: bc.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/bc/bc.1,v
retrieving revision 1.32
diff -u -p -r1.32 bc.1
--- bc.117 Nov 2015 05:45:35 -
