Post Reply 
[VA] SRC #011 - April 1st, 2022 Bizarro Special
04-05-2022, 05:20 PM
Post: #14
RE: [VA] SRC #011 - April 1st, 2022 Bizarro Special
(04-05-2022 07:23 AM)J-F Garnier Wrote:  
(04-04-2022 10:34 PM)Valentin Albillo Wrote:  
    Because if you do as J-F says, i.e. "calculate the integrand", you'll find that if all the variables use the same random number you'll get a nice but useless 0 divided by 0 value for the integrand and there's not much you or anyone else can do with that.

No, it's not as severe. If you use the same random value, and since x2=1+rnd you get exactly 1 for the integrand, and 1 as the result !

Sorry but it doesn't fly. That x2=1+rnd doesn't appear explicitly in the integrand expression as such, only x2-x1 in both numerator and denominator, and further it only appears when using your stochastic method, not if using other possible methods.

Thus, I don't think that rawi, when trying to compute the value of the integrand as it appears in my OP, would think or know about the need to add 1 to x2, which is only implicit in the [d, d+1] limits of integration and only when substituting d=1, thus he'd surely get 0 divided by 0 as I said he would.

J-F Garnier Wrote:
Valentin Albillo Wrote:
    I'm curious ... why 999 instead of 1,000 ?

I was expecting someone would ask... and you did!
It's just that, as you may know, I'm not very good in post formatting, so I used 999 instead of 1000 to keep the figures well aligned :-)

It doesn't fly either, you could have used 1E3, which aligns properly with 100, 200 and 500, and furthermore you include 20 and 50 which don't align with them either and you didn't seem to mind.

Best regards.
V.

  
All My Articles & other Materials here:  Valentin Albillo's HP Collection
 
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Messages In This Thread
RE: [VA] SRC #011 - April 1st, 2022 Bizarro Special - Valentin Albillo - 04-05-2022 05:20 PM



User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)