Why is Ada considered "too specialized" for scientific use
in [Fortran]
|
From: robin on 22 Apr 2010 09:20 "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message news:4bd01e14$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net... | In <4bcfaa84$0$895$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/22/2010 | at 11:39 AM, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: | | >You're wrong on both counts. | | 1. You have not addressed the question of whether Algol was used | to develop algorithms. Even had you *shown* that other languages | had been used earlier or more often, that would have not addrssed | the issue in dispute. That is irrelevant. It is not what I claimed. | 2. You cited a book describing multiple algorithms; you refused to | identify specific algorithms about which you were making claims. What don't you understand about the word "Programme"? It is a computer program. "General Interpretive Programme" is the name of the program, and also, incidentally, the name of a book.
From: Peter Flass on 23 Apr 2010 17:51 J. Clarke wrote: > >> 4. Random number generation. > > How were random numbers generated before computers? Did they not have > viable algorithms for the purpose? >> I think the "Chem Rubber Bible" has a table of random numbers you can use; just pick a spot to start. OTOH, that begs the question of how they were generated in the first place. I have visions of a roomful of people flipping coins.
From: Sjouke Burry on 23 Apr 2010 19:25 Peter Flass wrote: > J. Clarke wrote: >>> 4. Random number generation. >> How were random numbers generated before computers? Did they not have >> viable algorithms for the purpose? > > I think the "Chem Rubber Bible" has a table of random numbers you can > use; just pick a spot to start. OTOH, that begs the question of how > they were generated in the first place. I have visions of a roomful of > people flipping coins. Just take any bad quality resistor, zenerdiode, or a number of other electronic components, amplify the noise, and use it with a bit of hardware to produce an endless stream of random numbers. No computers needed.
From: robin on 21 Apr 2010 21:39 "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap(a)library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in message news:4bcb3e14$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice(a)news.patriot.net... | In <4bc97500$0$78577$c30e37c6(a)exi-reader.telstra.net>, on 04/17/2010 | at 06:43 PM, "robin" <robin51(a)dodo.com.au> said: | | >Had you actually read what I wrote in my first post in this thread, | | I did; it was both irrelevant and unsubstantiated. You're wrong on both counts. | >you would have comprehended that I said "first IMPLEMENTED in machine | >code" | | See above. | | >And I twice substantiated my claim. | | No; you neither identified the algorithms to which you were referring What don't you understand about "General Interpretive Programme". That's the algorithm. It's the one I indentified. Four times now. nor | demonstrated that they had not previously been implemented on, e.g., dead | trees, mechanical calculators. That's irrelevant. But if you want an example of that, try computer-produced music.
From: Gary L. Scott on 23 Apr 2010 20:18
On 4/23/2010 6:25 PM, Sjouke Burry wrote: > Peter Flass wrote: >> J. Clarke wrote: >>>> 4. Random number generation. >>> How were random numbers generated before computers? Did they not have >>> viable algorithms for the purpose? >> >> I think the "Chem Rubber Bible" has a table of random numbers you can >> use; just pick a spot to start. OTOH, that begs the question of how >> they were generated in the first place. I have visions of a roomful of >> people flipping coins. > > Just take any bad quality resistor, zenerdiode, or a number > of other electronic components, amplify the noise, and use it > with a bit of hardware to produce an endless stream of random numbers. > No computers needed. Excellent time to trim nonessential newsgroups |