Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 12:56:16 UTC No. 16204087

>>16204072
> t. Low IQ CSmonkey

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:05:59 UTC No. 16204101

>>16204072
You know that numbers other than integers exist right?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 13:57:02 UTC No. 16204177

>>16204101
Yeah, there's also floats

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:16:11 UTC No. 16204226

>>16204177
You will never be a real number. Your finite precision is a crude mockery of nature's infinitude.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:18:26 UTC No. 16204234

>>16204177
So, you're going to do multiplication by a float as a for loop somehow?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 14:54:31 UTC No. 16204299

>>16204234
Why not? Just adjust the increment for each decimal place.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:02:21 UTC No. 16204316

>>16204101
Wrong. There are only unsigned integers, everything else are social constructs. We will pass a law to punish anyone who says otherwise as white supremacists.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:03:06 UTC No. 16204475

>>16204316
Absolutely based.

>>16204234
I guess you can on some level do "bitwise distribution" and separate the mantissa into individual integers. That's a pretty dumb way to do multiplication though.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:03:30 UTC No. 16204476

>>16204072
Yeah and good computational mathematicians go between both in their head? What's your point? Programming and computers were made for and by mathematicians to *gasp* do math.

Sorry that the trannies abuse it to make websites or whatever useless shit they do nowadays.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:04:07 UTC No. 16204478

>>16204475
Oops, the second reply was meant for >>16204299

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:11:25 UTC No. 16204508

>>16204476
It's a response to pic related.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:22:16 UTC No. 16204548

>>16204072
but abob, why does [1]x[-1] = [0]?

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:46:04 UTC No. 16204719

>>16204475
>a pretty dumb way to do multiplication though
How do you think computers do multiplication? Could you design a circuit that would multiply two values? Consider how that works without cheating and using analog circuits.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 16:55:44 UTC No. 16204754

>>16204719
by shift-add, or carry through circuits, or wallace trees etc.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 17:59:57 UTC No. 16204901

>>16204754
Sounds like for loops without the abstraction.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:57:01 UTC No. 16204951

>>16204072
>prod = prod + a

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 18:59:02 UTC No. 16204954

>>16204548
Because the square root of 1 is 0, so it reduces to 1x0x0x1 which cancels out to 0.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:03:53 UTC No. 16204959

>>16204476
Math you can't compile and run has a name: Schizophrenia.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:13:38 UTC No. 16204975

>>16204508
this makes it way easier to understand than some nocoder symbols, thanks

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:30:48 UTC No. 16205012

>>16204508

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 19:59:55 UTC No. 16205071

>>16204072
>>16204508
A for-loop is not always going to be equivalent to a sum operation. Consider infinite convergent sums.
The whole "n operation is just repeated n-1 operation" thing only works for natural numbers too. It breaks for real or rational numbers, for example.
I'm not saying these definitions aren't helpful, they definitely are, but context matters in math.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 20:39:06 UTC No. 16205134

>>16204476
>or whatever useless shit they do nowadays
They make frameworks on top of frameworks on top of frameworks and bully people that do not use their library, and the bully people who do use their library if they're not queer enough.

The open sores world is fucking cancer. At least with Microsoft you know what you're dealing with.

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 21:32:30 UTC No. 16205190

>>16204072
>summation
>product
ITS LITERALLY IN THE FUCKING NAME

Anonymous at Sat, 1 Jun 2024 22:04:04 UTC No. 16205217

>>16204072
actually they're cauchy operators
get raped faggot

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 00:28:58 UTC No. 16205476

>>16204901
For-loops tell you the "order" of bitwise register operations. They don't actually perform the operation.

If you want to know how actual mathematical computation happens you're probably better of looking at a numerical analysis textbook than some computer science/programming nonsense. General computer scientists are pretty good at the "algorithms" part of scientific computing but have absolutely no clue how the mathematics works out.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 01:59:53 UTC No. 16205577

>>16204508
Mathematicians engage in a phrase that I literally just invented called "esotericization". The act of intentional obsufucation to create the appearance of something being more complicated than it really is.

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 02:01:54 UTC No. 16205579

>>16204072
>btw these large scary math symbols are just for-loops
Help! I used 3.25 for b and everything went horribly wrong!

Anonymous at Sun, 2 Jun 2024 02:04:27 UTC No. 16205580

>>16204072
They're not, those operations are just recursion you retarded code monkey.