An amazing one-minute bit of fun at the interactive prompt
Raymond Hettinger
>>> while abs(z) < 2.0:
n += 1
z = z * z + c
>>> n * e
3.1415926
Compute π ± e by counting Mandlebrot set iterations :-)
Raymond
Raymond Hettinger
That should be: pi plus-or-minus e
Raymond
Ben Finney
> Compute π ± e by counting Mandlebrot set iterations :-)
Very cool! I love π nerdery.
Raymond Hettinger <pyt...@rcn.com> writes:
> > Compute ð ± e by counting Mandlebrot set iterations :-)
>
> That should be: pi plus-or-minus e
It was in my reader. Perhaps your server has encoding trouble?
--
\ Moriarty: “Forty thousand million billion dollars? That money |
`\ must be worth a fortune!” —The Goon Show, _The Sale of |
_o__) Manhattan_ |
Ben Finney
Martin Gregorie
> Raymond Hettinger <pyt...@rcn.com> writes:
>
>> Compute π ± e by counting Mandlebrot set iterations :-)
>
> Very cool! I love π nerdery.
>
>
> Raymond Hettinger <pyt...@rcn.com> writes:
>
>> > Compute ð ± e by counting Mandlebrot set iterations :-)
>>
>> That should be: pi plus-or-minus e
>
> It was in my reader. Perhaps your server has encoding trouble?
Same here (Pan reader, Fedora 14).
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
Steven D'Aprano
>>>> e = 10.0 ** -7; n = 0; z = c = complex(-0.75, e)
>>>> while abs(z) < 2.0:
> n += 1
> z = z * z + c
>
>>>> n * e
> 3.1415926
Absolutely brilliant! That alone justifies including complex as a built-
in type. *wink*
> Compute π ± e by counting Mandlebrot set iterations :-)
eps would be a better name than e. As I read it, π ± e would be some
number between 0.423310825130748 and 5.859874482048838, which isn't a
terribly impressive approximation :)
BTW, I see the symbol in your post as π (pi), not ð (lowercase eth).
--
Steven
Anssi Saari
> Raymond Hettinger <pyt...@rcn.com> writes:
>
>> Compute π ± e by counting Mandlebrot set iterations :-)
>
> Very cool! I love π nerdery.
>
>
> Raymond Hettinger <pyt...@rcn.com> writes:
>
>> > Compute ð ± e by counting Mandlebrot set iterations :-)
>>
>> That should be: pi plus-or-minus e
>
> It was in my reader. Perhaps your server has encoding trouble?
He (or rather Google) used iso-8859-7 as a character set, which is the
Latin/Greek alphabet and definitely has pi at 0xF0. Not exactly a
common character set though. Running a iso-8859-1 font in a terminal
means I see a ? instead of pi...
Roy Smith
Ben Finney <ben+p...@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> Raymond Hettinger <pyt...@rcn.com> writes:
>
> > Compute � � e by counting Mandlebrot set iterations :-)
>
> Very cool! I love � nerdery.
>
>
> Raymond Hettinger <pyt...@rcn.com> writes:
>
> > > Compute ð ± e by counting Mandlebrot set iterations :-)
> >
> > That should be: pi plus-or-minus e
>
> It was in my reader. Perhaps your server has encoding trouble?
He was probably reading the nroff man page.
(ducking and running)
Martin v. Loewis
py> ε = 10.0 ** -7; n = 0; z = c = complex(-0.75, ε)
py> while abs(z) < 2.0:
... n += 1
... z = z * z + c
...
py> π = n * ε
py> print(π)
3.1415926
Regards,
Martin
Ben Finney
> Ben Finney <ben+p...@benfinney.id.au> writes:
> > It [appeared correctly] in my reader. Perhaps your server has
> > encoding trouble?
>
> He (or rather Google) used iso-8859-7 as a character set, which is the
> Latin/Greek alphabet and definitely has pi at 0xF0. Not exactly a
> common character set though. Running a iso-8859-1 font in a terminal
> means I see a ? instead of pi...
Another good reason to eschew legacy encodings and use a Unicode
character encoding for all internet messages, like the extremely common
UTF-8. Get to it, Raymond! :-)
--
\ “I knew things were changing when my Fraternity Brothers threw |
`\ a guy out of the house for mocking me because I'm gay.” |
_o__) —postsecret.com, 2010-01-19 |
Ben Finney
Mark Dickinson
> [...]
> >>> n * e
>
> 3.1415926
>
> Compute ð ± e by counting Mandlebrot set iterations :-)
Very neat! Is it supposed to be obvious why this gives an
approximation to pi? If so, I'll think about it a bit more; if not,
do you have any references?
Maybe you should have saved this for March 14th...
Mark
Raymond Hettinger
> On Feb 20, 8:08 am, Raymond Hettinger <pyt...@rcn.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > >>> n * e
>
> > 3.1415926
> Very neat! Is it supposed to be obvious why this gives an
> approximation to pi? If so, I'll think about it a bit more; if not,
> do you have any references?
Even after reading the proof, I still don't find it to be obvious ;-)
http://home.comcast.net/~davejanelle/mandel.pdf
Raymond