Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

MPI vs GMP

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 7:34

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 7:52

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 9:08

I personally prefer OpenSSL's bignum library.
But I had never used large ints for anything other than crypto.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 9:57

MPI sucks. It often crashes when you use MP_read_signed_bin

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 10:12

Bignums are lame and aren't even needed. If it doesn't fit in 64 bits then change the way you develop. I'm losing hope in you, /prog/.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 10:26

>>5
0/10

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 10:50

>>6
YHBT

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 10:53

>>5-7
SPAWHBTC

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 13:00

>>5
What if my job is calculating the digits of pi?

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 13:09

>>9
What if my job is calculating crows through a window?

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 13:52

For example, a value [of pi] truncated to 11 decimal places is accurate enough to calculate the circumference of a circle the size of the earth with a precision of a millimeter, and one truncated to 39 decimal places is sufficient to compute the circumference of any circle that fits in the observable universe to a precision comparable to the size of a hydrogen atom.

A double precision floating point number truncates at around sixteen decimal places- (and this is a very naive storage method for numbers like pi and e, the significand could and should be longer than the IEEE standard). Please, I would like to hear about your real world application that requires pi to a greater accuracy than this, Sir.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 13:56

>>11
Factorials. Case closed.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 13:58

>>12
Your world isn't real.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 14:14

>>12
What exactly do you need large factorials for?
At any rate, you could create a storage type that does arithmetic in logarithms and uses Stirling's approximation for factorials, problem solved.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 14:19

>>10
Then your life sucks really bad and you should get a new job.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 17:06

>>13
Your

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 17:19

>>16
My?

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-17 17:59

>>15
I will, along with my job.

Name: Anonymous 2010-11-15 14:45

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List