Poll

After Diagnosing Tiny Angles

I certain: C=2pi.r is right
2 (66.7%)
I certain: C=2phew.r is right
1 (33.3%)
pi and phew are wrong
0 (0%)
pi and phew are right :o
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 3

Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)

  • 75 Replies
  • 2074 Views
*

Stash

  • 6688
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #30 on: November 20, 2020, 10:42:30 PM »
It's rare to find C/D experiment on youtube.  :o

Define rare.

*

Danang

  • 4155
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #31 on: November 21, 2020, 07:56:08 PM »
Rare:
Everybody talk about pi and pi and pi, but the C/D experiment videos are hard to find.
They might be nevous after trying offline C/D experiment, because pi doesn't work. #oops  8)
(Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Stash

  • 6688
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2020, 08:41:39 PM »
Rare:
Everybody talk about pi and pi and pi, but the C/D experiment videos are hard to find.
They might be nevous after trying offline C/D experiment, because pi doesn't work. #oops  8)

Just imagine every engineer/manufacturer has used Pi to create every piston and cylinder in every combustion engine on the planet. There must be literally a billion of these contraptions out there and they are all incorrectly machined, every last one of them. My goodness, the horror.

*

Danang

  • 4155
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #33 on: November 23, 2020, 06:46:50 PM »
So.. to get rid of such horror condition, research matters, especially among common people.

Then I wonder, what's wrong with maths and trigonometry so far?
Did any of you find a clue about why maths sometimes doesn't connect to reality?
(Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

JJA

  • 3460
  • Math is math!
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #34 on: November 24, 2020, 05:15:01 AM »
So.. to get rid of such horror condition, research matters, especially among common people.

Then I wonder, what's wrong with maths and trigonometry so far?
Did any of you find a clue about why maths sometimes doesn't connect to reality?

I think the clue lies inside you.  Look deep.

*

Danang

  • 4155
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #35 on: November 26, 2020, 07:11:06 PM »
I think the clue lies inside you.  Look deep.

Be my guest. Please tell me what that is.
Can you explain why pi is only right in maths while experiment tells different constant?


(Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

JJA

  • 3460
  • Math is math!
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2020, 10:06:29 AM »
I think the clue lies inside you.  Look deep.

Be my guest. Please tell me what that is.
Can you explain why pi is only right in maths while experiment tells different constant?

Sure!  You don't understand how to measure a circle.

*

Danang

  • 4155
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #37 on: November 27, 2020, 05:53:24 PM »
Really? Kinda disagree for now..

But this one is not bad ^_^

(Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

Danang

  • 4155
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2020, 06:00:17 PM »
Is trigonometry preseted into pi?
(Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

*

JJA

  • 3460
  • Math is math!
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #39 on: November 28, 2020, 04:55:40 PM »
Really? Kinda disagree for now..

I watched your video where you used a paper strip, cut weird notches into it that were clearly not lined up right and then measured these incorrectly cut sections to get the wrong answer for PI.

So yeah, you don't know how to measure a circle. :)

*

Stash

  • 6688
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #40 on: November 28, 2020, 06:01:42 PM »
Really? Kinda disagree for now..

I watched your video where you used a paper strip, cut weird notches into it that were clearly not lined up right and then measured these incorrectly cut sections to get the wrong answer for PI.

So yeah, you don't know how to measure a circle. :)

I think some calipers are in order. Paper, scissors, and notches don't seem to be very exacting, especially when we're talking decimal places.

*

Danang

  • 4155
  • Everything will be "Phew" in its time :')
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #41 on: December 02, 2020, 04:58:31 AM »
Really? Kinda disagree for now..

I watched your video where you used a paper strip, cut weird notches into it that were clearly not lined up right and then measured these incorrectly cut sections to get the wrong answer for PI.

So yeah, you don't know how to measure a circle. :)

Yeah, okay,.
Now I rephrase the initial idea about volume. Are sure the formula is already right?
Is it that easy to translate a flat surface (pyramid) with round surface (sphere)?
(Curved Grided) South Pole Centered FE Map AKA Phew FE Map
Downwards Universal Deceleration.

Phew's Silicon Valley: https://gwebanget.home.blog/

Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #42 on: December 29, 2020, 09:59:04 AM »
Okay, no.more pi day.

Pi is over, replaced by PHEW = 3.17157  8)
My video proved that phew is wrong and pi is correct.  I even included your 6 radian challenge which also showed that pi is correct.

So, since you're back on the phew train, does this mean you've debunked my video?



Mike
« Last Edit: December 29, 2020, 10:00:59 AM by MicroBeta »
Since it costs 1.82 to produce a penny, putting in your 2 if really worth 3.64.

*

FlatAssembler

  • 438
  • Not a FE-er
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #43 on: January 12, 2021, 08:39:51 AM »
Constant pi applies for circular area, not circumference.

Next: "Pi & Phew Day". 👌
You realize that you can prove that pi applies to circumference by Pythagorean theorem and numeric integration, right? So, you think Pythagorean theorem is also measurably wrong here? I mean, it is wrong where the spacetime is curved (black holes), but here the spacetime is nearly flat.
Fan of Stephen Wolfram.
This is my parody of the conspiracy theorists:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71184.0

*

FlatAssembler

  • 438
  • Not a FE-er
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2021, 12:33:16 PM »
I've written a simple program in C++ to explain how the circumference of the circle being equal to 2*r*pi follows from the Pythagorean Theorem and numeric integration:
Code: [Select]
#include <cmath>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>

int main() {
  using namespace std;
  cout << "How many middle-points do you want on the unit circle?" << endl;
  int number_of_middle_points;
  cin >> number_of_middle_points;
  if (number_of_middle_points < 0) {
    cerr << "Error!" << endl;
    return 1;
  }
  cout << "The points on the unit circle are:" << endl;
  vector<pair<double, double>> middle_points;
  middle_points.push_back(make_pair(-1, 0));
  cout << "(-1, 0)" << endl;
  for (int i = 1; i <= number_of_middle_points; i++) {
    double x = -1 + 2. * i / (number_of_middle_points + 1);
    double y = sqrt(1 - x * x); // This follows from the Pythagorean Theorem and
                                // the distance from the center to any point on
                                // the unit circle always being 1.
    cout << "(" << x << ", " << y << ")" << endl;
    middle_points.push_back(make_pair(x, y));
  }
  cout << "(1, 0)" << endl;
  middle_points.push_back(make_pair(1, 0));
  double approximation_of_pi = 0;
  for (int i = 1; i < middle_points.size(); i++) {
    double distance =
        hypot(middle_points[i].first - middle_points[i - 1].first,
              middle_points[i].second - middle_points[i - 1].second);
    cout << "The distance between (" << middle_points[i - 1].first << ", "
         << middle_points[i - 1].second << ") and (" << middle_points[i].first
         << ", " << middle_points[i].second << ") is " << distance << endl;
    approximation_of_pi += distance;
  }
  cout << "The sum of the distances is " << approximation_of_pi
       << ", which is close to but less than pi." << endl;
}
Here is an example session of it, it prints inter-results which you can check yourself:
Code: [Select]
How many middle-points do you want on the unit circle?
10
The points on the unit circle are:
(-1, 0)
(-0.818182, 0.57496)
(-0.636364, 0.771389)
(-0.454545, 0.890724)
(-0.272727, 0.962091)
(-0.0909091, 0.995859)
(0.0909091, 0.995859)
(0.272727, 0.962091)
(0.454545, 0.890724)
(0.636364, 0.771389)
(0.818182, 0.57496)
(1, 0)
The distance between (-1, 0) and (-0.818182, 0.57496) is 0.603023
The distance between (-0.818182, 0.57496) and (-0.636364, 0.771389) is 0.267661
The distance between (-0.636364, 0.771389) and (-0.454545, 0.890724) is 0.217482
The distance between (-0.454545, 0.890724) and (-0.272727, 0.962091) is 0.195323
The distance between (-0.272727, 0.962091) and (-0.0909091, 0.995859) is 0.184927
The distance between (-0.0909091, 0.995859) and (0.0909091, 0.995859) is 0.181818
The distance between (0.0909091, 0.995859) and (0.272727, 0.962091) is 0.184927
The distance between (0.272727, 0.962091) and (0.454545, 0.890724) is 0.195323
The distance between (0.454545, 0.890724) and (0.636364, 0.771389) is 0.217482
The distance between (0.636364, 0.771389) and (0.818182, 0.57496) is 0.267661
The distance between (0.818182, 0.57496) and (1, 0) is 0.603023
The sum of the distances is 3.11865, which is close to but less than pi.
Fan of Stephen Wolfram.
This is my parody of the conspiracy theorists:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71184.0

*

FlatAssembler

  • 438
  • Not a FE-er
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #45 on: January 13, 2021, 12:42:36 PM »
Is trigonometry preseted into pi?
Trigonometric functions are calculated using integrals, and those integrals often happen to evaluate to pi or, more commonly, pi divided by some integer. The inverse tangent function, for example, is the integral of 1/(1+x^2), and, when evaluated for 1, it is equal to pi/4.
Fan of Stephen Wolfram.
This is my parody of the conspiracy theorists:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71184.0

Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #46 on: January 13, 2021, 01:58:05 PM »
By calculation, phew is unbeatable.
And this my experiment  (where's yours?)  8)


Cutting notches was your mistake.  Take a pen and make a mark on the edge of the paper, or measure the initial cut.  By cutting notches, you moved the points that you were measuring.

Your suggestion is okay. I even ever used a needle to mark the paper tape for a better precision.

If you are sure pi=C:D, why not showing us your own experiment?

I did. A year ago.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83481.msg2219697#msg2219697

Why do you continue to use crappy tools, and fail to do any statistical analyses of your results, and fail to provide any tolerance analysis? You suck at precision measurement.

Quit saying that no one does the measurement.

You're just lying. About this and other things.

*

FlatAssembler

  • 438
  • Not a FE-er
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #47 on: January 13, 2021, 02:20:08 PM »
By calculation, phew is unbeatable.
And this my experiment  (where's yours?)  8)


Cutting notches was your mistake.  Take a pen and make a mark on the edge of the paper, or measure the initial cut.  By cutting notches, you moved the points that you were measuring.

Your suggestion is okay. I even ever used a needle to mark the paper tape for a better precision.

If you are sure pi=C:D, why not showing us your own experiment?

I did. A year ago.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83481.msg2219697#msg2219697

Why do you continue to use crappy tools, and fail to do any statistical analyses of your results, and fail to provide any tolerance analysis? You suck at precision measurement.

Quit saying that no one does the measurement.

You're just lying. About this and other things.
Anybody who understands the theory of measurement understands mathematics well enough to understand the formula for circumference of a circle is not to be derived using empirical measurements.
Fan of Stephen Wolfram.
This is my parody of the conspiracy theorists:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71184.0

Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #48 on: January 13, 2021, 02:47:45 PM »
By calculation, phew is unbeatable.
And this my experiment  (where's yours?)  8)


Cutting notches was your mistake.  Take a pen and make a mark on the edge of the paper, or measure the initial cut.  By cutting notches, you moved the points that you were measuring.

Your suggestion is okay. I even ever used a needle to mark the paper tape for a better precision.

If you are sure pi=C:D, why not showing us your own experiment?

I did. A year ago.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=83481.msg2219697#msg2219697

Why do you continue to use crappy tools, and fail to do any statistical analyses of your results, and fail to provide any tolerance analysis? You suck at precision measurement.

Quit saying that no one does the measurement.

You're just lying. About this and other things.
Anybody who understands the theory of measurement understands mathematics well enough to understand the formula for circumference of a circle is not to be derived using empirical measurements.
Not deriving the formula. Taking up danang's challenge to do a measurement and show a result. Mostly to show him that using the rim of a drinking glass and a plastic ruler are not sufficiently accurate tools to make the measurement he thinks he is making.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40913
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #49 on: January 13, 2021, 05:00:23 PM »
I've written a simple program in C++ to explain how the circumference of the circle being equal to 2*r*pi follows from the Pythagorean Theorem and numeric integration:
You ran that program with 10 mid points.  Since there are an infinite number of mid points on any given circle, what happens if you run it with 10,000 mid points?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JJA

  • 3460
  • Math is math!
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #50 on: January 13, 2021, 05:41:00 PM »
My favorite way to calculate PI is to generate a series of random x,y coordinates from 0.0 to 1.0.

Then you use Pythagoras's theorem to get the distance from 0,0 to x,y.

If it is less than 1.0 then it is inside a circle with a radius of 1.0.

You keep track of how many points fall inside, and how many total points, and simple math will give you an estimate of PI.

I wrote a quick program and got this.

Number of points, Points inside, PI estimate

10 8 3.2
100 86 3.44
1000 799 3.196
10000 7883 3.1532
100000 78495 3.1398
1000000 785633 3.142532

Note that it gives PI, not whatever funky number Phew is supposed to be.  :)

*

FlatAssembler

  • 438
  • Not a FE-er
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #51 on: January 14, 2021, 02:06:42 AM »
My favorite way to calculate PI is to generate a series of random x,y coordinates from 0.0 to 1.0.

Then you use Pythagoras's theorem to get the distance from 0,0 to x,y.

If it is less than 1.0 then it is inside a circle with a radius of 1.0.

You keep track of how many points fall inside, and how many total points, and simple math will give you an estimate of PI.

I wrote a quick program and got this.

Number of points, Points inside, PI estimate

10 8 3.2
100 86 3.44
1000 799 3.196
10000 7883 3.1532
100000 78495 3.1398
1000000 785633 3.142532

Note that it gives PI, not whatever funky number Phew is supposed to be.  :)
Well, yes, but Danang is claiming that, while pi applies to areas, phew supposedly applies to circumference.
Fan of Stephen Wolfram.
This is my parody of the conspiracy theorists:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71184.0

*

FlatAssembler

  • 438
  • Not a FE-er
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #52 on: January 14, 2021, 02:09:09 AM »
I've written a simple program in C++ to explain how the circumference of the circle being equal to 2*r*pi follows from the Pythagorean Theorem and numeric integration:
You ran that program with 10 mid points.  Since there are an infinite number of mid points on any given circle, what happens if you run it with 10,000 mid points?
I get a not-a-number result because of numerical instability (dividing 0 by 0).
Fan of Stephen Wolfram.
This is my parody of the conspiracy theorists:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71184.0

*

JJA

  • 3460
  • Math is math!
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #53 on: January 14, 2021, 05:59:44 AM »
My favorite way to calculate PI is to generate a series of random x,y coordinates from 0.0 to 1.0.

Then you use Pythagoras's theorem to get the distance from 0,0 to x,y.

If it is less than 1.0 then it is inside a circle with a radius of 1.0.

You keep track of how many points fall inside, and how many total points, and simple math will give you an estimate of PI.

I wrote a quick program and got this.

Number of points, Points inside, PI estimate

10 8 3.2
100 86 3.44
1000 799 3.196
10000 7883 3.1532
100000 78495 3.1398
1000000 785633 3.142532

Note that it gives PI, not whatever funky number Phew is supposed to be.  :)
Well, yes, but Danang is claiming that, while pi applies to areas, phew supposedly applies to circumference.

Circumference of a circle: PI R2

Area of a circle: PI R2

How pi magically changes values in his mind by squaring the radius is a mystery, isn't it? Does he not know how algebra works? ::)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40913
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #54 on: January 14, 2021, 06:23:29 AM »
I've written a simple program in C++ to explain how the circumference of the circle being equal to 2*r*pi follows from the Pythagorean Theorem and numeric integration:
You ran that program with 10 mid points.  Since there are an infinite number of mid points on any given circle, what happens if you run it with 10,000 mid points?
I get a not-a-number result because of numerical instability (dividing 0 by 0).
Interesting, because I got a number very close to pi.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

FlatAssembler

  • 438
  • Not a FE-er
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #55 on: January 14, 2021, 07:56:06 AM »
My favorite way to calculate PI is to generate a series of random x,y coordinates from 0.0 to 1.0.

Then you use Pythagoras's theorem to get the distance from 0,0 to x,y.

If it is less than 1.0 then it is inside a circle with a radius of 1.0.

You keep track of how many points fall inside, and how many total points, and simple math will give you an estimate of PI.

I wrote a quick program and got this.

Number of points, Points inside, PI estimate

10 8 3.2
100 86 3.44
1000 799 3.196
10000 7883 3.1532
100000 78495 3.1398
1000000 785633 3.142532

Note that it gives PI, not whatever funky number Phew is supposed to be.  :)
Well, yes, but Danang is claiming that, while pi applies to areas, phew supposedly applies to circumference.

Circumference of a circle: PI R2

Area of a circle: PI R2

How pi magically changes values in his mind by squaring the radius is a mystery, isn't it? Does he not know how algebra works? ::)
Well, I am not sure what the math behind the ratio of circumference to the diameter and the ratio of the area and the square of the radius being equal is, as I have not studied math that much. But obviously, simple numerical calculations show them to be equal (or at least very close).
Fan of Stephen Wolfram.
This is my parody of the conspiracy theorists:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71184.0

*

FlatAssembler

  • 438
  • Not a FE-er
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #56 on: January 14, 2021, 07:58:46 AM »
I've written a simple program in C++ to explain how the circumference of the circle being equal to 2*r*pi follows from the Pythagorean Theorem and numeric integration:
You ran that program with 10 mid points.  Since there are an infinite number of mid points on any given circle, what happens if you run it with 10,000 mid points?
I get a not-a-number result because of numerical instability (dividing 0 by 0).
Interesting, because I got a number very close to pi.
Which compiler did you use? With what options? Results of fine numeric calculations can vary depending on which compiler and which options you use, as has been well-documented.
Fan of Stephen Wolfram.
This is my parody of the conspiracy theorists:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71184.0

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40913
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #57 on: January 14, 2021, 09:20:33 AM »
I've written a simple program in C++ to explain how the circumference of the circle being equal to 2*r*pi follows from the Pythagorean Theorem and numeric integration:
You ran that program with 10 mid points.  Since there are an infinite number of mid points on any given circle, what happens if you run it with 10,000 mid points?
I get a not-a-number result because of numerical instability (dividing 0 by 0).
Interesting, because I got a number very close to pi.
Which compiler did you use? With what options? Results of fine numeric calculations can vary depending on which compiler and which options you use, as has been well-documented.
This one: https://www.onlinegdb.com/online_c++_compiler

If you're trying to do high precision calculations, then why wouldn't you choose high precision math options?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

FlatAssembler

  • 438
  • Not a FE-er
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #58 on: January 14, 2021, 09:57:21 AM »
I've written a simple program in C++ to explain how the circumference of the circle being equal to 2*r*pi follows from the Pythagorean Theorem and numeric integration:
You ran that program with 10 mid points.  Since there are an infinite number of mid points on any given circle, what happens if you run it with 10,000 mid points?
I get a not-a-number result because of numerical instability (dividing 0 by 0).
Interesting, because I got a number very close to pi.
Which compiler did you use? With what options? Results of fine numeric calculations can vary depending on which compiler and which options you use, as has been well-documented.
This one: https://www.onlinegdb.com/online_c++_compiler

If you're trying to do high precision calculations, then why wouldn't you choose high precision math options?
Well, I am usually using the CLANG C++ compiler, I have barely heard of onlinegdb. What are those high precision math options on CLANG?
Fan of Stephen Wolfram.
This is my parody of the conspiracy theorists:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71184.0

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40913
Re: Again: 3 Spheres ain't Equal 2 Cylinder (Please No Big Mouth)
« Reply #59 on: January 14, 2021, 10:07:44 AM »
What are those high precision math options on CLANG?
You're the computer scientist, so you tell me.  I would think that checking for at least double precision variable and calculation support would be a good place to start.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 10:09:46 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.