Ryan8bit wrote:
newtype_alpha wrote:
Incorrect. Calculators produce their results by logical relationships hard wired directly into their circuitry. Basically, it's a series of voltage gates that physically play out the AND/OR/NAND/NOR/etc logical processes. There's nothing "random" about it; it's essential a conversion from one data type (binary/boolean) to a more easily readable one (base ten decimal).
Softwarebased calculators (javascript, for example) are even simpler, since they can perform logical operations on whole numbers without resorting to boolean relationships (although, deep down, that's what computers are doing when they run a javascript anyway).

I know how computers and bitwise math works, and yet none of that explains where you came up with "2%" or how you didn't fundamentally understand what he was saying.

1) Because for a given number (don't remember which one I used) using a random number generator to produce the proper value will yield 50 completely different results, one of which is the actual square root.
2) I understood exactly what he was saying. MY point is that trialanderror is a meaningless process if you don't have a parameter to define the CORRECT value in a reasonable amount of time; a calculator doesn't need to FIND the square root, it just follows the logic hardwired into it and prints an output accordingly.
Yeah, the word random was probably wrong, but I got the feeling he was referring to the more arbitrary process of choosing a method.

Which is, again, self defeating if you haven't defined the parameters for success.