[VA] "Introducing APRIL !" microchallenge

[Valentin Albillo]

.
Hi, all,

Thanks for your interest in my microchallenge and most definitely for your posts. I'll give here some comments to said posts so if you posted something, please read on. I also give a date for posting my "original solution", so to say. Let's begin ...

J-F Garnier Wrote:Expressed in these terms, this challenge seems very vague, and almost impossible to investigate.

Not so.

J-F Garnier Wrote:But - assuming it's a serious question [...] Furthermore (if we trust the author), [...]

How rude ! ... What did I ever do to you !?

C.Ret Wrote:Since we are looking for a suspect that was silent for a so long time, we can't based you investigation only on suspicion. Any suspect have to be interrogated et tested.

Very true.

C.Ret Wrote:Valentin clearly indicate that there is only one specific operation that produces a different result !

Replace that "only" by "at least" and then your assertion will be correct. I never said "only one", check my OP above if in doubt.

C.Ret Wrote:But you observation about the given range [ 0.1 , 1500 ] is for sure of a primary importance and may certainly indicate something else that what we are suspecting.

Not really, that's the approximate range of values my program dealt with, that 0.1 could be 0.0037, say, and that 1500 could be 1213.78, I gave it just to let it be known that neither extremely small nor extremely big values were involved, just "normal-ranged" values.

C.Ret Wrote:May the "spice" have display this result a different way ? For example an alternative format close to 6.666666-05 ?

Display format has nothing to do with this, the difference is between the values themselves, not how they're displayed, as J-F pointed out.

ijabbott Wrote:You could include REC->POL in that list as long as you ignore the angular part of the result.

No, you can't, I said "purely arithmetic operation", which polar-rectangular or vice versa conversions aren't, as they use trigs in both directions.

J-F Garnier Wrote:Sorry Valentin for the digression, now it's time to go back to the "APRIL" case !

Fantastic ! I'm sure you'll succeed.

Enough comments. I fully expect that some of you kind and capable readers will be able to pinpoint such an instance as the one I serendipitously discovered when running my program and finding the results inconsistent with one another.

I'll post the offending result as well as my original sleuthing and the culprit operation next Thursday, 7 so you have 3 more days to try and tackle it.

Be aware that if I see no signs of sufficient effort on your part my final post might well be along the lines of "Ha ha, it was just an elaborate April Fools' Day joke and you fell for it ! Let's forget about it !" and let the matter rest for another 40 years.

Best regards.
V.
Edit: Corrected misattributed quote.
Edit: Corrected the deadline, it was meant to be Thursday 7, not Friday 8, sorry.