On 3/9/2024 4:21 PM, Lazy Larry wrote:
> On 09 Mar 2024 20:55:19 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>
>> Don't be too harsh on python. Last time you checked, you had 5, five,
>> yes FIVE, versions of python on your own computer. For someone who pretend to
>> master his computer and to hate python, it tells a lot.
>>
>
> That's Gentoo, honey.
>
> I got 3 but I could have 10, 20, or a billion.
>
> I can select:
>
> [~]# eselect python list
> Available Python interpreters, in order of preference:
> [1] python3.11
> [2] python3.12
> [3] python2.7
>
> Python 3.11 is first because that is the current Gentoo
> default. But I can switch between all versions at will
> via:
>
> eselect python [1 | 2 | 3]
>
> Can you do that with your crippled distro?

Of course

update-alternatives (basically manages symlinks)
https://www.baeldung.com/linux/update-alternatives-command

//current
wsl$ python
Python 3.10.12 (main, Nov 20 2023, 15:14:05) [GCC 11.4.0] on linux

//install new python
wsl$ sudo apt install python3.11
Setting up python3.11 (3.11.0~rc1-1~22.04) ...
Processing triggers for man-db (2.10.2-1) ...

//add 2 python entries to the update-alternatives app
sudo update-alternatives --install /usr/bin/python python
/usr/bin/python3.10 1
sudo update-alternatives --install /usr/bin/python python
/usr/bin/python3.11 2

//choose which python version you want
~$ sudo update-alternatives --config python
There are 2 choices for the alternative python (providing /usr/bin/python).

Selection Path Priority Status
------------------------------------------------------------
* 0 /usr/bin/python3.11 2 auto mode
1 /usr/bin/python3.10 1 manual mode
2 /usr/bin/python3.11 2 manual mode

Press <enter> to keep the current choice[*], or type selection number:

//new python version is the default
wsl$ python
Python 3.11.0rc1 (main, Aug 12 2022, 10:02:14) [GCC 11.2.0] on linux

You can set and choose from multiple versions of the same program (as
above), or multiple programs assigned to the same name (like 5 different
apps assigned the name 'editor'.

On Windows you could create a folder of .bat files with names:
editor.bat
image.bat
newsreader.bat

And inside each one list the related executables and REM out the ones
you don't want to use for the time being.

editor.bat
REM "C:\Program Files\Notepad++\notepad++.exe" %1
REM "C:\Windows\SysWOW64\notepad.exe" %1
"C:\Program Files\Sublime Text\sublime_text.exe" %1

Add the folder with the .bat files to your path

Then from any location enter
$ editor file.txt
and it will launch the designated app and open the file in it

On 3/11/2024 11:58 AM, Leering Larry Piet wrote:

>> https://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/
> https://flintlib.org/
> I have settled on the Perl module Math::Prime::Util::GMP:
>
> https://manpages.org/mathprimeutilgmp/3
>
>
> FOSS is the greatest. Who would ever use Microslop?

Any and everyone.

Virtually all FOSS is available for Windows.

Every library and app you talked about here runs on Windows too.

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote at 22:48 this Monday (GMT):
> On 3/9/2024 4:21 PM, Lazy Larry wrote:
>> On 09 Mar 2024 20:55:19 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Don't be too harsh on python. Last time you checked, you had 5, five,
>>> yes FIVE, versions of python on your own computer. For someone who pretend to
>>> master his computer and to hate python, it tells a lot.
>>>
>>
>> That's Gentoo, honey.
>>
>> I got 3 but I could have 10, 20, or a billion.
>>
>> I can select:
>>
>> [~]# eselect python list
>> Available Python interpreters, in order of preference:
>> [1] python3.11
>> [2] python3.12
>> [3] python2.7
>>
>> Python 3.11 is first because that is the current Gentoo
>> default. But I can switch between all versions at will
>> via:
>>
>> eselect python [1 | 2 | 3]
>>
>> Can you do that with your crippled distro?
>
>
> Of course
>
> update-alternatives (basically manages symlinks)
> https://www.baeldung.com/linux/update-alternatives-command
>
>
> //current
> wsl$ python
> Python 3.10.12 (main, Nov 20 2023, 15:14:05) [GCC 11.4.0] on linux
>
> //install new python
> wsl$ sudo apt install python3.11
> Setting up python3.11 (3.11.0~rc1-1~22.04) ...
> Processing triggers for man-db (2.10.2-1) ...
>
> //add 2 python entries to the update-alternatives app
> sudo update-alternatives --install /usr/bin/python python
> /usr/bin/python3.10 1
> sudo update-alternatives --install /usr/bin/python python
> /usr/bin/python3.11 2
>
> //choose which python version you want
> ~$ sudo update-alternatives --config python
> There are 2 choices for the alternative python (providing /usr/bin/python).
>
> Selection Path Priority Status
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> * 0 /usr/bin/python3.11 2 auto mode
> 1 /usr/bin/python3.10 1 manual mode
> 2 /usr/bin/python3.11 2 manual mode
>
> Press <enter> to keep the current choice[*], or type selection number:
>
> //new python version is the default
> wsl$ python
> Python 3.11.0rc1 (main, Aug 12 2022, 10:02:14) [GCC 11.2.0] on linux
>
>
>
> You can set and choose from multiple versions of the same program (as
> above), or multiple programs assigned to the same name (like 5 different
> apps assigned the name 'editor'.
>
>
>
>
> On Windows you could create a folder of .bat files with names:
> editor.bat
> image.bat
> newsreader.bat
>
> And inside each one list the related executables and REM out the ones
> you don't want to use for the time being.
>
> editor.bat
> REM "C:\Program Files\Notepad++\notepad++.exe" %1
> REM "C:\Windows\SysWOW64\notepad.exe" %1
> "C:\Program Files\Sublime Text\sublime_text.exe" %1
>
> Add the folder with the .bat files to your path
>
> Then from any location enter
> $ editor file.txt
> and it will launch the designated app and open the file in it

I'm pretty sure? that debian comes preinstalled with
update-alternatives.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:40:32 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:

>>
>>
> The second image is now corrected:
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/FmKpsHzY/prob26-10k.png
>

This is definitely a global first. Such n plot has never before appeared
anywhere in the history of civilized man. Never.

And it's all due to GNU/Linux/FOSS.

On 3/12/2024 9:58 AM, Nuxxie wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 08:40:32 +0000, Farley Flud wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>> The second image is now corrected:
>>
>> https://i.postimg.cc/FmKpsHzY/prob26-10k.png
>>
>
> This is definitely a global first. Such n plot has never before appeared
> anywhere in the history of civilized man. Never.
>
> And it's all due to GNU/Linux/FOSS.
>

It is a plot nice to have access to for some enthusiasts. Make sure it
doesn't get lost. Place is somewhere on the web where related
enthusiasts can permanently access it at will.

It provides a rare peep into how things are for larger integers at the
denominator of rational numbers. Not derived, but actually computed.

Then, somebody should derive such features by math alone, not computing.
At least the main features. It could be publishable too, if not derived
before. But I doubt it's something novel. Math people have done all
sorts of investigations, many of them even long ago.

Here are some of the facts it depicts.

- the plot shows, with certainty, that strange surprises aren't in store
(this is why I wanted to see it)

- it shows firm limits to the sizes of repeated decimals' length, that
depend only on the size of the integer in the denominator

- it shows four trends (so far) as one goes for larger integers in
denominator

- it hints on endless repeating structures inside the 1 to 9 interval,
as we go deeper and deeper into higher and higher resolution to deal
with numbers existing therein

All the four features above should hold for any base, not just 10.
There's really nothing special about base 10. The base can be chosen as
any positive real number. In fact, it would be nice to have the same
plot, but for number system in base e :-)

The reason I like this "e" base is, there must be a reason (which I
still don't know or remember) that when used as base in logarithms,
makes them called "natural" logarithm. There must be some special
significance to it.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:16:21 -0500, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
> It provides a rare peep into how things are for larger integers at the
> denominator of rational numbers. Not derived, but actually computed.
>
> Then, somebody should derive such features by math alone, not computing.
> At least the main features. It could be publishable too, if not derived
> before. But I doubt it's something novel. Math people have done all
> sorts of investigations, many of them even long ago.
>

If you want, I can provide a file containing the data up to 100,000
or perhaps 1 million.

The linear trend can be investigated.

I was thinking about doing this myself but I haven't got the time
right now. I am not a tenured professor and I do not have an abundance
of free time (unfortunately).

>
> All the four features above should hold for any base, not just 10.
> There's really nothing special about base 10. The base can be chosen as
> any positive real number. In fact, it would be nice to have the same
> plot, but for number system in base e :-)
>

That is quite true -- for any integer base it will be the same.

For an irrational base, however, I cannot comment.

Correct me if I am wrong, but an irrational base has no practical
or even theoretical utility in expressing INTEGER quantities, and
INTEGER quantities are the basis for our counting system.

Sure, we can express PI as 1.0 in base PI but what does that
improve?

On 3/12/2024 4:00 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 15:16:21 -0500, Physfitfreak wrote:
>
>>
>> It provides a rare peep into how things are for larger integers at the
>> denominator of rational numbers. Not derived, but actually computed.
>>
>> Then, somebody should derive such features by math alone, not computing.
>> At least the main features. It could be publishable too, if not derived
>> before. But I doubt it's something novel. Math people have done all
>> sorts of investigations, many of them even long ago.
>>
>
> If you want, I can provide a file containing the data up to 100,000
> or perhaps 1 million.
>
> The linear trend can be investigated.
>
> I was thinking about doing this myself but I haven't got the time
> right now. I am not a tenured professor and I do not have an abundance
> of free time (unfortunately).
>
>
>>
>> All the four features above should hold for any base, not just 10.
>> There's really nothing special about base 10. The base can be chosen as
>> any positive real number. In fact, it would be nice to have the same
>> plot, but for number system in base e :-)
>>
>
> That is quite true -- for any integer base it will be the same.
>
> For an irrational base, however, I cannot comment.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but an irrational base has no practical
> or even theoretical utility in expressing INTEGER quantities, and
> INTEGER quantities are the basis for our counting system.
>
> Sure, we can express PI as 1.0 in base PI but what does that
> improve?
>

First, I wouldn't engage in creating a plot for a wider range of
integers in denominator, just like you did, at this point. If it was for
me, I'd first remove what's bothering me about how it is produced, and
that's the fact that I don't know how that software works.

Again, if it was for me to do it, I'd first write a simple program
myself, to find the length of repeating decimals for each number in the
denominator, to make sure everything is the way it should be. If I would
get identical results to what the software produced, only then, use the
software for wider ranges of integers.

And about irrational bases and integer quantities, I remind you that the
irrational e base system of numbers are full of integers :) You just
have to let go of comparisons to base 10 situation, and only think in
terms of base e as the only math you have at your disposal. Then
everything works just like before, and for everything in math.

The two numbers in base e that I suggested in that challenge problem to
add and get the result, were, in base e, two integers! It doesn't matter
one bit that their base 10 number is not integer, because we're doing
the math in base e now. Integers are perfectly described in the base e.
You saw it for yourself that nothing came after the radix points in
those numbers, so it wasn't even necessary to put the dots there :-)

The entire math, as it is now, can be based on a number system with base
e. In this system, numbers 1 and 2 mean exactly what they do in base 10,
but the rest of the numbers are of course different from their base 10
representation. Let me give an example.

Say there are 5 Nazi cro-magnons standing on the deck of a U.S. navy war
ship close to Yemen, preparing to get on F-35s to bomb the Houthis for
no other reason than their dicks want so, and their dicks want so,
because those Nazis are obedient servants of Satan. MIGHT AS WELL, and
for no other reason that makes sense. Therefore, a Houthi in Yemen calls
you and asks you this,

"I want to know how many cro-magnons are standing there on the deck
to adjust the anti-personnel warhead load on this missile accordingly,
before they get on their F-35s. We want the lightest options we have, to
make the missiles fastest as possible, but enough to wipe the Nazis
clean off of that deck."

But you have a problem. Houthis, turns out, use the number system in
base e only. They know nothing of a nonsensical "base 10" in use. So
what would you do to tell them that there are "5" of them on the deck?

Fortunately, you followed Physfit's advice and wrote that little program
that converts this unfamiliar number "5" into something Houthis
understand as 5, and you relay the information to them as:

"There are 12.02 ... number of cro-magnons standing on the deck."

With "..." representing more and more digits to any accuracy that you
ever wish to have. By the way, 12.02 part is correct. I just calculated
it. But it's not complete, of course. The numbers to the right of the
radix point continue. But for Houthis, even 12.02 is enough to know
exactly how many Nazis are on the deck.

So your argument that this conversion of 5 into 12.02.... introduces
unnecessary difficulties, is really countered perfectly by countless
cases of _integers_ in e base system, for which their 10 base
representations have horribly looking never ending decimals. Why
perfectly? Because life and business both, deals with much, much more
cases of partial amounts to measure. Amounts of stuff that cannot be
described with whole numbers no matter what base you're working in.
That's why.

So e or 10 base or whatever base, is immaterial. Math works equivalently
in all such cases, and as efficiently too.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com