Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[jonetsu]

Hello,

Is it possible to show results of the calculator (M-x calculator)
without the exponent but instead the full number with all digits ?

Cheers.

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Emanuel Berg via help-gnu-emacs]

jonetsu wrote:

> Is it possible to show results of the
> calculator (M-x calculator) without the
> exponent but instead the full number with all
> digits ?

I don't think so from browsing the variables,
but I might be wrong, so I CC this to
Eli Barzilay who wrote it - see the source [1]
for his e-mail.

He wrote it way back in 1998 tho
(20y 11m 20d (7659d) ago if we assume
1998-06-15) ...


[1] /usr/share/emacs/25.1/lisp/calculator.el.gz

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Emanuel Berg via help-gnu-emacs]

> I don't think so from browsing the variables,
> but I might be wrong, so I CC this to Eli
> Barzilay [...]

I got an answer to my private mail! I don't
know if it reached the list tho. Anyway here it
is:

    ++ Is it possible to show results of the
    ++ calculator (M-x calculator) without the
    ++ exponent but instead the full number
    ++ with all digits ?
    +
    + I don't think so from browsing the
    + variables, but I might be wrong, so I CC
    + this to Eli Barzilay who wrote it - see
    + the source [...] for his e-mail.

    I dug into the code, and there's
    a hard-wired 1e8 there which makes it
    decide to use `format` with "%e" instead of
    "%f". I obviously don't remember why
    I hard-wired it without making it
    customizable (maybe it made more sense in
    a 32-bit world), so a cheap way to make it
    possible is to turn it into a variable.
    A better way would be to make it
    interactively changeable.

    BTW, without any modifications, you can hit
    ' (quote) until it says that it's using the
    Emacs printer, and that will do what Emacs
    does. (Again, that's obviously different
    now than what it did 20y ago.)

    (Yet another possibility is to set
    `calculator-copy-displayer` to "%S" so when
    you copy values out you get whatever
    Emacs does.)

    + He wrote it way back in 1998 tho (20y 11m
    + 20d (7659d) ago if we assume 1998-06-15)
    + ...

    Actually, I wrote it about 1-2 years before
    I thought it could be useful publicly...

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2019-06-04, at 21:43, jonetsu <jonetsu@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Is it possible to show results of the calculator (M-x calculator)
> without the exponent but instead the full number with all digits ?

Is using calc possible in your use-case?  If yes, that would probably
help a lot.

Hth,

--
Marcin Borkowski
http://mbork.pl

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Emanuel Berg via help-gnu-emacs]

Marcin Borkowski wrote:

>> Is it possible to show results of the
>> calculator (M-x calculator) without the
>> exponent but instead the full number with
>> all digits ?
>
> Is using calc possible in your use-case?
> If yes, that would probably help a lot.

Or use Lisp, create a file and just type Lisp.
With `format', you can get the result look
anyway you want.

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[jonetsu]

On Wed, 05 Jun 2019 06:11:28 +0200
Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> wrote:

> Is using calc possible in your use-case?  If yes, that would probably
> help a lot.

Thanks.  I have totally forgotten about calc.  I'm used to calculator
somehow.  calc does exactly what I need.

In that light, it might not be worthwhile to modify calculator when
calc already offers additional formats and features.  My question was
misguided by having forgotten about calc.

Emmanuel Berg: "Or use Lisp, create a file and just type Lisp.
With `format', you can get the result look anyway you want."

I must say that I do not know anything about Lisp and I don't consider
that modifying a .emacs file is any knowledge of Lisp.  Maybe one
day ...  Just saw a presentation yesterday about a compiler for quantum
processors written in Lisp, quil.

Cheers.

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Emanuel Berg via help-gnu-emacs]

jonetsu wrote:

> Emmanuel Berg: "Or use Lisp, create a file
> and just type Lisp. With `format', you can
> get the result look anyway you want."
>
> I must say that I do not know anything about
> Lisp [...]

If you want to do math with Lisp, it is much
better to be good with math and bad at Lisp,
than the other way around.

Because it is very easy. Just understand the
"fully parenthesized prefix notation" [1] and
that will be it.

So, the operator comes first:
(+ 1 2 3 4) ; is 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10

And, the priority of operators is never an
issue as _everything_ is parenthesized.

That's it!

For more advanced math, you'll probably need to
find a math library with additional operators
and constants, perhaps in on of the
[M]ELPA packs, but for the basic stuff, it is
as simple as it can be.

Here, have a look:


(defun hypotenuse (c1 c2)
  (sqrt (+ (* c1 c1) (* c2 c2))) )


or, a little bit more advanced, involving
a list and a set function:


(defun mean-value (vs)
  (let*((sum  (apply #'+ vs))
        (mean (/ sum (length vs) 1.0)) )
    mean) ) ; [2]


Eval me: (mean-value '(1 2 3 4 5.5)) ; 3.1


One of the advantages with this Lisp-file
method is that you have every data item in the
file. Nothing gets lost in the history of the
calculator, and what you have you can change
and instantly have the whole thing
computed anew.


[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language)
[2] https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/my-math.el

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Nick Dokos]

Emanuel Berg via help-gnu-emacs <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> writes:

> jonetsu wrote:
>
>> Emmanuel Berg: "Or use Lisp, create a file
>> and just type Lisp. With `format', you can
>> get the result look anyway you want."
>>
>> I must say that I do not know anything about
>> Lisp [...]
>
> If you want to do math with Lisp, it is much
> better to be good with math and bad at Lisp,
> than the other way around.
>
> Because it is very easy. Just understand the
> "fully parenthesized prefix notation" [1] and
> that will be it.
>
> So, the operator comes first:
> (+ 1 2 3 4) ; is 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10
>
> And, the priority of operators is never an
> issue as _everything_ is parenthesized.
>
> That's it!
>
> For more advanced math, you'll probably need to
> find a math library with additional operators
> and constants, perhaps in on of the
> [M]ELPA packs, but for the basic stuff, it is
> as simple as it can be.
>
> Here, have a look:
>
>
> (defun hypotenuse (c1 c2)
>   (sqrt (+ (* c1 c1) (* c2 c2))) )
>
>
> or, a little bit more advanced, involving
> a list and a set function:
>
>
> (defun mean-value (vs)
>   (let*((sum  (apply #'+ vs))
>         (mean (/ sum (length vs) 1.0)) )
>     mean) ) ; [2]
>
>
> Eval me: (mean-value '(1 2 3 4 5.5)) ; 3.1
>
>
> One of the advantages with this Lisp-file
> method is that you have every data item in the
> file. Nothing gets lost in the history of the
> calculator, and what you have you can change
> and instantly have the whole thing
> computed anew.
>
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_(programming_language)
> [2] https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/my-math.el

I'd like to put in a plug for Dave Gillespie's calc, that's part
of emacs. Just say

    M-x calc

type `h i', read the manual (as much of it as you can possibly take:
it's big) and go calculate.

-- 
Nick

"There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache
invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors." -Martin Fowler

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Xavier Maillard]

Hi Nick,

always a (very) good thing to check what is shipped with GNU emacs
standard package before tryin to install yet another alternative.

I know, GNU emacs is huge but the manuals give many help on what can
be done natively right out of the box.

We should all be careful before installing third-party extensions on
the urge.

++

        - xma

GPG:  BA4909B7 8F04DE1B

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2019-06-06, at 01:47, Emanuel Berg via help-gnu-emacs <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> wrote:

> (defun hypotenuse (c1 c2)
>   (sqrt (+ (* c1 c1) (* c2 c2))) )

Just for the fun, let me mention that this is not a very good algorithm
for computing the Pythagorean sum - it may happen that both the operands
and the result lie within the bounds for the given type, but this
calculation blows up because of large squares overflowing.  Also, it is
slow because of the need to compute square roots.

Interestingly, there exists a clever algorithm that does not have these
problems.  It is used (among others) in Donald Knuth's METAFONT.  The
algorithm is described in the paper (using Emanuel's favorite
format;-)):

@ARTICLE{5390405,
  author={C. {Moler} and D. {Morrison}},
  journal={IBM Journal of Research and Development},
  title={Replacing Square Roots by Pythagorean Sums},
  year={1983},
  volume={27},
  number={6},
  pages={577-581},
  keywords={},
  doi={10.1147/rd.276.0577},
  ISSN={0018-8646},
  month={Nov},
}

Best,

--
Marcin Borkowski
http://mbork.pl

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Emanuel Berg via help-gnu-emacs]

Marcin Borkowski wrote:

>> (defun hypotenuse (c1 c2)
>>   (sqrt (+ (* c1 c1) (* c2 c2))) )
>
> Just for the fun, let me mention that this is
> not a very good algorithm for computing the
> Pythagorean sum - it may happen that both the
> operands and the result lie within the bounds
> for the given type but this calculation blows
> up because of large squares overflowing.

Well, first let it be known that Marcin is
a professional mathematician, famous for his
remarkable calculations. That said, the above
comment is on the computer side of things,
right? In the math world, what would happen is
just a very large triangle, again - right?

Assuming integers, how large can they be in
Emacs Lisp? Eval us:

most-positive-fixnum ;  536870911
"Typical values are 2**29 − 1 on 32-bit and
2**61 − 1 on 64-bit platforms." [1]

most-negative-fixnum ; -536870912
"Typical values are −2**29 on 32-bit
and −2**61 on 64-bit platforms." [1]

How do you know if your "platform"
(i.e. kernel?) is 32- or 64-bit?

Tricky, but here is an incomplete guide from
the systems I have access to:

    Debian Intel:   uname -m; i686 -> 32-bit, x86_64 -> 64
    OpenBSD:        uname -m; amd64 -> 64 (same type as x86-64 BTW)
    RPi3 Raspbian:  uname -m; armv7l -> 32
    SunOS/Solaris:  'isainfo -kv' tells you

Also remember that you can have 64 HW but still
a 32 Linux kernel - but probably not the other
way around :)) (?)

Otherwise you can use Emacs to find out!

most-positive-fixnum ; 536870911

then compute 2**29 - 1:

    # /bin/zsh
    $ echo $(( 2**29 − 1 ))
    536870911

so yes, it checks out for my RPi3 :)

> Also, it is slow because of the need to
> compute square roots. Interestingly, there
> exists a clever algorithm that does not have
> these problems.

Why don't you post it in Elisp to prove my
point one can use Elisp for math, even advanced
math! <3

> It is used (among others) in Donald Knuth's
> METAFONT. The algorithm is described in the
> paper (using Emanuel's favorite format;-)):

That's true, I frekking *love* Biblatex! [2]

> @ARTICLE{5390405,
>   author={C. {Moler} and D. {Morrison}},
>   journal={IBM Journal of Research and Development},
>   title={Replacing Square Roots by Pythagorean Sums},
>   year={1983},
>   volume={27},
>   number={6},
>   pages={577-581},
>   keywords={},
>   doi={10.1147/rd.276.0577},
>   ISSN={0018-8646},
>   month={Nov},
> }

Only I keep mine much neater :)

@book{land-of-lisp,
  author     = {Conrad Barski},
  isbn       = 1593272812,
  publisher  = {No Starch},
  title      = {Land of Lisp},
  year       = 2010
}

@book{lispcraft,
  author     = {Robert Wilensky},
  isbn       = 0393954420,
  publisher  = {Norton},
  title      = {LISPcraft},
  year       = 1984
}
%% [3]


[1] (info "(elisp) Integer Basics")
[2] https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/my-bibtex.el
[3] https://dataswamp.org/~incal//books/books.bib

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[tomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1252 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 06:50:55PM +0200, Emanuel Berg via help-gnu-emacs wrote:
> Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> 
> >> (defun hypotenuse (c1 c2)
> >>   (sqrt (+ (* c1 c1) (* c2 c2))) )
> >
> > Just for the fun, let me mention that this is
> > not a very good algorithm for computing the
> > Pythagorean sum - it may happen that both the
> > operands and the result lie within the bounds
> > for the given type but this calculation blows
> > up because of large squares overflowing.
> 
> Well, first let it be known that Marcin is
> a professional mathematician, famous for his
> remarkable calculations. That said, the above
> comment is on the computer side of things,
> right? In the math world, what would happen is
> just a very large triangle, again - right?
> 
> Assuming integers, how large can they be in
> Emacs Lisp? Eval us:
> 
> most-positive-fixnum ;  536870911
> "Typical values are 2**29 − 1 on 32-bit and
> 2**61 − 1 on 64-bit platforms." [1]

[...]

Newer Emacsen support bignums:

(expt 71 71) => 275006373483461607657434076627252658495183350017755660813753981774508905998081919405140568848353397233796618192645698819765129996471

That said, calc itself supports bignums since
long.

Cheers
-- t

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Emanuel Berg via help-gnu-emacs]

tomas wrote:

> Newer Emacsen support bignums:
>
> (expt 71 71) =>
> 275006373483461607657434076627252658495183350017755660813753981774508905998081919405140568848353397233796618192645698819765129996471

(expt 71 71) ; -141793097

> That said, calc itself supports bignums
> since long.

OK, but how could it, if Emacs didn't?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[tomas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 700 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 07:11:12PM +0200, Emanuel Berg via help-gnu-emacs wrote:
> tomas wrote:
> 
> > Newer Emacsen support bignums:
> >
> > (expt 71 71) =>
> > 275006373483461607657434076627252658495183350017755660813753981774508905998081919405140568848353397233796618192645698819765129996471
> 
> (expt 71 71) ; -141793097
> 
> > That said, calc itself supports bignums
> > since long.
> 
> OK, but how could it, if Emacs didn't?

Well, it can do fractions too. And symbolic expressions. Although they
arent native to elisp. Magic :-)

See calc.el, especially below this comment:

  ;;;; Arithmetic routines.

for a beginning of a long and exciting journey.

Cheers
-- t

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2019-06-06, at 18:50, Emanuel Berg via help-gnu-emacs <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> wrote:

> Marcin Borkowski wrote:
>
>>> (defun hypotenuse (c1 c2)
>>>   (sqrt (+ (* c1 c1) (* c2 c2))) )
>>
>> Just for the fun, let me mention that this is
>> not a very good algorithm for computing the
>> Pythagorean sum - it may happen that both the
>> operands and the result lie within the bounds
>> for the given type but this calculation blows
>> up because of large squares overflowing.
>
> Well, first let it be known that Marcin is
> a professional mathematician, famous for his

Professional - maybe, famous - luckily not.

> remarkable calculations. That said, the above
> comment is on the computer side of things,
> right? In the math world, what would happen is
> just a very large triangle, again - right?

Of course.  There is no overflow in maths;-).

>> Also, it is slow because of the need to
>> compute square roots. Interestingly, there
>> exists a clever algorithm that does not have
>> these problems.
>
> Why don't you post it in Elisp to prove my
> point one can use Elisp for math, even advanced
> math! <3

Not enough time...  Maybe in the future...

>> It is used (among others) in Donald Knuth's
>> METAFONT. The algorithm is described in the
>> paper (using Emanuel's favorite format;-)):
>
> That's true, I frekking *love* Biblatex! [2]
>
>> @ARTICLE{5390405,
>>   author={C. {Moler} and D. {Morrison}},
>>   journal={IBM Journal of Research and Development},
>>   title={Replacing Square Roots by Pythagorean Sums},
>>   year={1983},
>>   volume={27},
>>   number={6},
>>   pages={577-581},
>>   keywords={},
>>   doi={10.1147/rd.276.0577},
>>   ISSN={0018-8646},
>>   month={Nov},
>> }
>
> Only I keep mine much neater :)

"Mine" was autogenerated by some service on the web.

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://mbork.pl

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Van L]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:

> On 2019-06-04, at 21:43, jonetsu <jonetsu@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to show results of the calculator (M-x calculator)
>> without the exponent but instead the full number with all digits ?
>
> Is using calc possible in your use-case?  If yes, that would probably
> help a lot.

Emacs-27's calc does bignum.

-- 
© 2019 Van L
gpg using EEF2 37E9 3840 0D5D 9183  251E 9830 384E 9683 B835
           "you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out" - Donald J. Trump

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Robert Pluim]

>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 22:20:11 +1000, Van L <van@scratch.space> said:

    Van> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@mbork.pl> writes:
    >> On 2019-06-04, at 21:43, jonetsu <jonetsu@teksavvy.com> wrote:
    >> 
    >>> Is it possible to show results of the calculator (M-x calculator)
    >>> without the exponent but instead the full number with all digits ?
    >> 
    >> Is using calc possible in your use-case?  If yes, that would probably
    >> help a lot.

    Van> Emacs-27's calc does bignum.

Not just emacs-27's, thatʼs been in there since basically
forever. emacs-27 *also* has gmp-based bignums, but calc does not
(yet) use those.

Robert

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Stefan Monnier]

> Not just emacs-27's, thatʼs been in there since basically forever.

Indeed.

> emacs-27 *also* has gmp-based bignums, but calc does not
> (yet) use those.

Doesn't it?


        Stefan

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Van L]

Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:

>     Van> Emacs-27's calc does bignum.
>
> Not just emacs-27's, thatʼs been in there since basically
> forever. emacs-27 *also* has gmp-based bignums, but calc does not
> (yet) use those.

Yes.  Correction.  I think.  I reached a bignum in 27 but it wasn't
through calc.

-- 
© 2019 VanL
gpg using EEF2 37E9 3840 0D5D 9183  251E 9830 384E 9683 B835
          'The mouth is the dirtiest part on the human body.' - Bill Wallace

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Emanuel Berg via help-gnu-emacs]

Van L wrote:

> Emacs-27's calc does bignum.

Is there a paleo-techno-scientific definition
of "bignum" or is it just short for
a big numbers?

-- 
underground experts united
http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Van L]

Emanuel Berg via help-gnu-emacs <help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org> writes:

> Van L wrote:
>
>> Emacs-27's calc does bignum.
>
> Is there a paleo-techno-scientific definition
> of "bignum" or is it just short for
> a big numbers?

It is a shorthand or contraction or
telescope-collapsing-fold like calc is to calculation or
calculator, saving time and space.



-- 
© 2019 VanL
gpg using EEF2 37E9 3840 0D5D 9183  251E 9830 384E 9683 B835
          'The mouth is the dirtiest part on the human body.' - Bill Wallace

Re: Calculator: no exponent, full number ?

[Joe Trivers via help-gnu-emacs]

> From: Emanuel Berg via help-gnu-emacs
> Sent: 6 June, 2019 1:11 PM

>tomas wrote:
>> Newer Emacsen support bignums:
. . .
>> That said, calc itself supports bignums
>> since long.

>OK, but how could it, if Emacs didn't?

By implementing its own number representations and arithmetic library in Elisp.
From nearly 30 years ago.
See calc-arith.el by David Gillespie. A _very_ impressive piece of work.
I don't understand it at all.

The content of this message is APPLIED MATERIALS CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me, delete this email and do not use or distribute this email.