10000000000000000000
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
 
Advanced search
MATCHING GROUPS



more...
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

found 26 articles for 0.303 sec
Hi Aaron, Plot Range is transformed into a machine number. Therefore, 10^-600 changed to zero. Daniel Aaron Fude wrote: > Hi, > > I may be wondering why I need this, but I do: > > ParametricPlot[{10^-600 z, z}, {z, 0, 100}, > PlotRange -> {{0, 10^-100}, {0, 100}}, AspectRatio -> 1] > > works perfectly, but > > ParametricPlot[{10^-600 z, z}, {z     

Group: comp.softsys.math.mathematica · Group Profile · Search for 10000000000000000000 in comp.softsys.math.mathematica
Author: dh
Date: Jul 10, 2008 03:37

Hi, I may be wondering why I need this, but I do: ParametricPlot[{10^-600 z, z}, {z, 0, 100}, PlotRange -> {{0, 10^-100}, {0, 100}}, AspectRatio -> 1] works perfectly, but ParametricPlot[{10^-600 z, z}, {z, 0, 100}, PlotRange -> {{0, 10^-600}, {0, 100}}, AspectRatio -> 1] fails. What gives? Thanks, Aaron The error message is: ParametricPlot::"prng" : "\"Value of option
Show full article (1.11Kb) · Show article thread
Package: coreutils Version: 5.97-5.3 Severity: normal I observed seq to do strange things when FIRST and LAST are equal and very big and INCREMENT is very small. The case FIRST=LAST is very unusual, thus I set the severity of this big to normal. I observed the Problem while using seq in a script, in which this unusual situation occurs sometimes. As I don't know exactly what is going wrong     

Group: comp.softsys.math.mathematica · Group Profile · Search for 10000000000000000000 in comp.softsys.math.mathematica
Author: Aaron Fude
Date: Jul 8, 2008 04:48

And here is the same code in unit/module form with tables commented out: The possible table lookups/optimizations are left in in case I or any one else wants to test those ;) // *** Begin of Module Code *** unit UnitStringToUint64_version_003; interface function TryStrToUint64( S : string; var Value : Uint64 ) : boolean; implementation { Skybuck's TryStrToUint64 conversion
Show full article (0.65Kb)
And here is the same code in unit/module form with tables commented out: The possible table lookups/optimizations are left in in case I or any one else wants to test those ;) // *** Begin of Module Code *** unit UnitStringToUint64_version_003; interface function TryStrToUint64( S : string; var Value : Uint64 ) : boolean; implementation { Skybuck's TryStrToUint64 conversion     

Group: linux.debian.bugs.dist · Group Profile · Search for 10000000000000000000 in linux.debian.bugs.dist
Author: Christian Gogolin
Date: Mar 21, 2008 07:10

Hello, Sometimes I google for my own code and then it sucks if I one can't find it or too it's incomplete. So one more time the complete code as it now is, all 3 versions embedded. Version 0.03 is now active... big 1600 bytes lookup tables still active but those could be commented out. Maybe somebody else could write a nice benchmark program for it ? Tomorrow maybe I write one, but
Show full article (2.18Kb)
Hello, Sometimes I google for my own code and then it sucks if I one can't find it or too it's incomplete. So one more time the complete code as it now is, all 3 versions embedded. Version 0.03 is now active... big 1600 bytes lookup tables still active but those could be commented out. Maybe somebody else could write a nice benchmark program for it ? Tomorrow maybe I write one, but     

Group: alt.lang.asm · Group Profile · Search for 10000000000000000000 in alt.lang.asm
Author: Skybuck Flying
Date: Oct 25, 2007 01:12

Hello, Here is my version 0.01 and my optimized version 0.02 which uses only one lookup and one addition per character/digit. Also the checks will be pretty fast because it's very unlike the checks will: 1. Happen at all for lesser/smaller values/strings. 2. Happen at full length, full length for maximum value only ;) So pretty fast "safety" checks. And finally 3. Pretty damn
Show full article (9.41Kb)
Dude, No Big Deal ! (Damn I wrote some comments here accidently deleted them during wrong copy paste/undo operation and fucking outlook express doesn't have a redo functionality SHIT I kinda forgot what I wrote but it went something like this:) Borland should first split up it's messy routine so that each special case is handled seperately and not create one gigant big mess ! Then     

Group: alt.comp.lang.borlanddelphi · Group Profile · Search for 10000000000000000000 in alt.comp.lang.borlanddelphi
Author: Skybuck Flying
Date: Oct 25, 2007 01:12

Show full article (9.41Kb)
    

Group: alt.lang.asm · Group Profile · Search for 10000000000000000000 in alt.lang.asm
Author: Skybuck Flying
Date: Oct 25, 2007 01:04

Show full article (10.07Kb)
    

Group: alt.comp.lang.borlanddelphi · Group Profile · Search for 10000000000000000000 in alt.comp.lang.borlanddelphi
Author: Skybuck Flying
Date: Oct 25, 2007 01:04

Show full article (10.07Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: alt.comp.lang.borlanddelphi · Group Profile · Search for 10000000000000000000 in alt.comp.lang.borlanddelphi
Author: Skybuck Flying
Date: Oct 25, 2007 00:31

Show full article (9.72Kb)
    

Group: alt.comp.lang.borlanddelphi · Group Profile · Search for 10000000000000000000 in alt.comp.lang.borlanddelphi
Author: Skybuck Flying
Date: Oct 25, 2007 00:10

Show full article (5.08Kb) · Show article thread
    

Group: lada.photo · Group Profile · Search for 10000000000000000000 in lada.photo
Author: Lerns
Date: Sep 14, 2007 22:38

Show full article (0.02Kb) · Show article thread
1 · 2 · 3 · next