Re: ran 3 trials of 100K to check the recovery of a rational number from

Bill Allombert on Thu, 05 Jun 2025 12:03:05 +0200

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ran 3 trials of 100K to check the recovery of a rational number from its decimal

To: American Citizen <website.reader3@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ran 3 trials of 100K to check the recovery of a rational number from its decimal
From: Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux.fr>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2025 12:03:01 +0200
References: <5ac5bdad-cc25-4d18-a995-fe32283456a0@gmail.com>

On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 11:05:03PM -0700, American Citizen wrote:
> And somewhat irritatingly, I got a zero from the random(N) function call,
> which resulted in a zero in the denominator, so I had to watch out for that.

You can use random([1,N]) if you need a random number x so that 1<=x<=N.

Cheers,
Bill.

References:
- ran 3 trials of 100K to check the recovery of a rational number from its decimal
  - From: American Citizen <website.reader3@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: question on recovering a rational number from its decimal value
Next by Date: Re: finding primes modulo which x^m mod f(x) has a prescribed result
Previous by thread: Re: ran 3 trials of 100K to check the recovery of a rational number from its decimal
Next by thread: Re: question on a possible new function or extending the existing one for core()
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread