- #26

- 137

- 0

I'm not sure ifAs far as programming a(programmable) calculator, I'm pretty sure it could be done... and implement the algorithm in someprogramming language.

*that*applies to my old '

*programmable'*(£10) Sharp EL-509, with no

*programming language*. It has a

*12²-place buffer*where I can write formulas and

**ANS**. I can put there N (B), [because it's a simple formula], changing x [itex]\rightarrow[/itex] ANS :

**{(ANS²+a) : 2ANS}**, and press 5x Enter. But, is this an algorithm, just because of the feedback : ANS? I can't put LD in my calculator (how do I deal with

*'trial-and-error'*?), I'd like to learn how to do that, without a

*real*algorithm.

*This*problem has been bugging me, I wonder if anyone can kindly help, as:

I used

*that*term in the OP only beacause I read it in other threads, but I was afraid it was not appropriate, as ,

*AFAIK*, N (or B) is just an iterative method, and an

*iterated formula*requires

**no**logical decisions such as : "if A, ...then GOTO; if B...."

1 operation: {The best known algorithm... requires 3 operations, ... Do you know asimpleror faster one? Canyoufind a method that requires only 1 operation?

**k [:] m**} can hardly be referred to as an

*'algorithm'*...(I called it, more modestly, a method)

...which, as it was rightly pointed out, needs decisions like : if p > q, then....;.... if p< q... then STOP etc. But in post #13, again, N was referred to as Newton's algorithm, so, why N's can do without '> <' and mine can't?What about "<" as well?....Manyalgorithms ...rely onbeing able to tell whether one number is bigger than another, and so "<" is important.

Lastly, to explain the sense of my question (

*"could you tell Altrepair*..."): LD is surely less expensive than N and B, especially if we count micro-operations, but is surely more cumbersome than both: my challenge was to find the

*most simple*(and fastest), formula: LD is much more complex than N (B).

*'Only one operation'*may seem a

*tall order*, but not only

**it is possible**, it is not too difficult if you examine the structure of a square

Last edited: