Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
About " computation "
#1
Hi guys.

I want to thank you all for your contributions at the forum.

But one thing frustrates me.

The " computation " section.

Im not so good with code.

And that bugs me.

That way there are things I do not understand.

I prefer math notation.

However I see the value of those posts and I understand that we want to plot and compute what we talk about.

Although I had some experience with math programs , such as maple , I still find myself puzzled by code or pseudocode.

I think many of you here studied computer science or such.

I have very little time although I post here regularly.
I doubt if I can learn and understand these codes in a short amount of time.

But its not just the code that bothers me.

Its the frustration that I cannot see the math behind it , because its not in math notation.

Im not sure how complex or Original the math behind the ideas is , but I do not like to miss out on it.

Also , Im not even sure how to use those code things.

What is this " pseudocode " actually ?

Is it a sort of generalized language such that you can write the code for your program yourself ( C+ , mathematica , maple , sage , ... ) ?

Im not sure for what programs those " pseudocodes " can be used.

Maybe I neglected computer science to much.

Maybe I have trouble with the code because Im not one of the first members.

I wish I could contribute more to the computation section.

regards

tommy1729



Reply
#2
(10/07/2014, 07:04 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: Hi guys.

I want to thank you all for your contributions at the forum.

But one thing frustrates me.

The " computation " section.

Im not so good with code.

And that bugs me.

That way there are things I do not understand.

I prefer math notation.

However I see the value of those posts and I understand that we want to plot and compute what we talk about.

Although I had some experience with math programs , such as maple , I still find myself puzzled by code or pseudocode.

I think many of you here studied computer science or such.

I have very little time although I post here regularly.
I doubt if I can learn and understand these codes in a short amount of time.

But its not just the code that bothers me.

Its the frustration that I cannot see the math behind it , because its not in math notation.

Im not sure how complex or Original the math behind the ideas is , but I do not like to miss out on it.

Also , Im not even sure how to use those code things.

What is this " pseudocode " actually ?

Is it a sort of generalized language such that you can write the code for your program yourself ( C+ , mathematica , maple , sage , ... ) ?

Im not sure for what programs those " pseudocodes " can be used.

Maybe I neglected computer science to much.

Maybe I have trouble with the code because Im not one of the first members.

I wish I could contribute more to the computation section.

regards

tommy1729

Hey Tommy,

I'm a computer geek, by hobby and by profession, so I tend to think in code, when the need arises. I like the math notation, but face two frustrations:

1) The TeX language is difficult to write/format quickly, and the alternative (plain text) is quicker but only useful for the most basic notations.
2) I can't "do" anything with it, the way I can take a block of code and use it to "do" things, like calculate a table of values, or better yet, calculate data points to display graphically. You may have noticed I liked to graph things. I feel it makes the data more accessible, in an intuitive sense.

I've been doing a lot of coding lately, and I need to get around to converting more of my results to math notation. If you think it would help, I can try to do more graphics. I don't want to go overkill on the graphs, especially because size can be a big concern. On my phone, the graphs make the page display funny. On my 1920x1080 HD display, my graphs look tiny. It's hard to size them correctly.

For what it's worth, I doubt I've come up with much original. Maybe novel restatements of previously discovered things. I think my most original contribution was my acceleration of Andrew Robbin's matrix method, and I honestly don't know how original that was.
~ Jay Daniel Fox
Reply
#3
(10/07/2014, 08:55 PM)jaydfox Wrote: For what it's worth, I doubt I've come up with much original. Maybe novel restatements of previously discovered things. I think my most original contribution was my acceleration of Andrew Robbin's matrix method, and I honestly don't know how original that was.

Oh that was before I became a member I think.

Is that acceleration method in the thread of Andrew's tetration ?

I'd like to learn more.

Maybe I have seen it anyway , but the name does not ring a bell.

Matrix methods are far from understood imho.

I would love to learn more about this acceleration , but maybe its all written down already ... and proved ?

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#4
(10/09/2014, 09:08 PM)tommy1729 Wrote:
(10/07/2014, 08:55 PM)jaydfox Wrote: For what it's worth, I doubt I've come up with much original. Maybe novel restatements of previously discovered things. I think my most original contribution was my acceleration of Andrew Robbin's matrix method, and I honestly don't know how original that was.

Oh that was before I became a member I think.

Is that acceleration method in the thread of Andrew's tetration ?

I'd like to learn more.

Maybe I have seen it anyway , but the name does not ring a bell.

Matrix methods are far from understood imho.

I would love to learn more about this acceleration , but maybe its all written down already ... and proved ?

regards

tommy1729

Here's where I had my "Aha!" moment (see post #6):
http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforu...401#pid401

For more in-depth discussion (or ramblings, depending on whether anyone but myself can follow what I was saying), see this thread, especially posts 3, 4, and 5:
http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforu...php?tid=59

There's a broken link in post #5. I'm afraid to edit such an old post, so I'll re-link it here. I tried inserting it as an embedded image, but it didn't work, so you'll have to click the link to see it:
http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforu...php?aid=73

Finally, where I really get into the technical details of my acceleration technique, is in this thread:
http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforu...php?tid=63

And then I posted code, which is quite out of date:
http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforu...php?tid=74

There was some misunderstanding by some forum members about what I was doing. For example, Henryk (Bo) thought that if I was adding a pair of logarithmic approximations (similar to the regular slog), I would need to divide by 2 in order to remain a true Abel function (see post #13 in the thread linked below):
http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforu...553#pid553

One of these days I'll get around to posting a formal explanation of why we don't need to divide by 2.

Anyway, I think Andrew was the first to really "get it". See post #2 in this thread, where he does a decent job of explaining my method:
http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforu...14#pid1814

~ Jay Daniel Fox
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)