That page was written for a bit stream (so you would use those exact techniques on the binary value of pi).

This kind of thing is used often in cryptography to ensure that the keys are created randomly (or as randomly as possible).
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |

posted
Yeah, the binary method would be an extremely elegant choice of rv, because then you should get a simple bernoulli distribution.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |

posted
Bob: yes, they do specify a digit and not some other digit, but that's just representation. The "number" is the same whether its in base 10, base 2, base 12, or base 111. None is in any way more fundamental than the others.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |

quote:It's just 37 x 0.17. Can't people do math without calculators any more?

I agree. I find it very alarming that one would have to post to a forum to find the solution for this math problem rather then just get a pencil and some paper and do the math.

I remember when we weren't allowed to bring calculators into the math classroom.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |

posted
I prefer using a pencil and paper, Danzig. In 2nd-order stuff in algebra (say, parabulas - that we're going to do very soon, currently we're calculating areas of shapes created by various 1st order graphs and functions). The small things get me confused, and I failed COMPLETELY in three tests because of the plus-minus issues.

That's why I probably won't make it into "5 points"... It all depends on my test result, that I had today.
Posts: 358 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |

posted
In second-order algebra, I too would use a pencil and paper, unless I had to get up to get them. But .17 * 37 is mere multiplication. There are no plus-minus issues involved in that one.

Furthermore it just looks cool when you can do mental math faster than someone can type it out on the calculator. It is useful when calculating sales tax while shopping too.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |

posted
Did anyone else who calculated this in their head go .17*37 --> 1.7*3.7 --> (2.7-1)*(2.7+1) --> (2.7)^2-1 --> 7.29-1 --> 6.29? 'Cause, you know, I'm just wondering if anyone else's brain works this way.

posted
Nope, I just calculated .17*37, no tricks. It IS somewhat easier if you do it your way, of course, but easy doesn't enter into grown-up life!
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Papa Moose: Did anyone else who calculated this in their head go .17*37 --> 1.7*3.7 --> (2.7-1)*(2.7+1) --> (2.7)^2-1 --> 7.29-1 --> 6.29? 'Cause, you know, I'm just wondering if anyone else's brain works this way.

It's nice making squares (especially when I know the squares of every number 'till about 30), but I don't try to make anything a square - I'd rather multiply one by the other.

If it's big numbers on paper (three numbers, three digits each), and I can make them a square or cube - I'd do it.
Posts: 358 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |