3 ms·
It's not a mystery per se. It's explained exceptionally well here [0]. [0] https://youtu.be/p8u_k2LIZyo?si=loEDS5hPcRGWXk0E https://youtu.be/p8u_k2LIZyo?si=lo
by bastscho 8mo ago
It's not a mystery per se.
It's explained exceptionally well here [0].
[0] https://youtu.be/p8u_k2LIZyo?si=loEDS5hPcRGWXk0E https://youtu.be/p8u_k2LIZyo?si=loEDS5hPcRGWXk0E
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- calibas 8mo agoCalling it a "mystery" gets suckers like me to click the link.
- bee_rider 8mo agoYeah, it wasn’t a real mystery (as noted in the Wikipedia article, it already existed in the numerical literature). But practically it would have surprised a lot of programmers in the days before Wikipedia, when you’d have had to read a somewhat specialized textbook or a paper to learn about it. Plus the exact constant selected and the method used to derive it remains a minor mystery, right? In the sense that it is good but non-optimal.
- Antibabelic 8mo agoThe "mystery" being referred to in the title is how the magic number was derived. This is what most of the article talks about.