PSLQ

[AlexFekken]

(11-30-2017 03:14 AM)Han Wrote:  I suppose it depends on whether you are looking at pure measure, or "relative measure" -- in the sense that most students are given problems in which the answers are generally not from the set of reals, but instead from the set of algebraic numbers. (I.e. they are guaranteed with probability 1.)

It has been a long time since I was a student and I agree that this was certainly the case in "my days". Really sad if this is still the case though.
It also begs the question of why you would allow the use of calculators for such problems (or why you would give them such problems when you allow the use of calculators)...

(11-30-2017 03:14 AM)Han Wrote:  But even for folks such as physicists are interested in these "nice" numbers because they show up as constants in various "important" physics equations. In fact, there is an entire field of study devoted to finding the "identity" of various constants all due to the advent of more efficient algorithms for integer coefficients such as PSLQ.

I am sure there is value in that in certain areas of physics.
But as the article points out: "Very high precision arithmetic is needed by PSLQ, or else nonsense results are obtained" which, if you add the obvious requirement that you need to relate that to the accuracy of your input, is sort of the main point that I was trying to make.

Better finish by saying that I do appreciate your efforts in implementating these algorithms. Just worried about some of the people who will use them with their eyes closed :-)