If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ZDNet)   Proving it's just like normal folks, Google sucks at math   (zdnet.com.au) divider line 29
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

5859 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Aug 2008 at 6:32 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



29 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2008-08-27 05:01:27 AM
Ehh...computers don't handle large numbers well. Nothing new.
 
2008-08-27 06:40:06 AM
I have no use for such big numbers, but then again I'm not entitled.
 
2008-08-27 06:41:58 AM
Must be using Intel processors
 
2008-08-27 06:43:29 AM
you gotta hate Google pretty bad, or be a yahoo fanboi maybe? to take the time to figure this shiat out.
 
2008-08-27 06:59:10 AM
They probably are using a "good enough" approach using Sig Figs. Google has massive CPU requirements as is, adding in a "Matlab" function will only make things slower.

I am betting it is a willful tradeoff - so people don't use the search engine as a scientific calculator.
 
2008-08-27 07:00:17 AM
Who the hell would really need Google to do this kind of math? Not many people ever need to deal with numbers that large with that amount of precision, and anybody who does is already going to be using powerful computing software like Mathematica. Anybody who feels the need to use a web search engine to do heavy math deserves to be given the wrong answer.
 
2008-08-27 07:10:49 AM
slumcat05: Who the hell would really need Google to do this kind of math? Not many people ever need to deal with numbers that large with that amount of precision, and anybody who does is already going to be using powerful computing software like Mathematica. Anybody who feels the need to use a web search engine to do heavy math deserves to be given the wrong answer.

This article was news to me that they even had a calculator function.
 
2008-08-27 07:15:11 AM
*sigh*

Something tells me companies that use those kind of numbers probably have their own software, and probably don't rely on Google for calculating them.


That's like complaining an online translator is giving 'grammatically inconsistent' results.

Ergo: Stop being a cheap-ass company, and hire a translator/buy a farking calculator.

/cheap ass-company
//because I just knew you were thinking of it
 
2008-08-27 07:23:01 AM
sloppy shoes: This article was news to me that they even had a calculator function.

I'm an engineer, and I've actually found it useful at times. It's a quick way to look up constants, say Boltzman's constant or something, or to do quick unit conversions when I can't find my TI-92. But when I need to calculate the distance between two objects in space in an ECI coordinate frame, I fire up Matlab, not Firefox.

/also nice for currency conversion
 
2008-08-27 07:35:48 AM
Just for fun, I opened up Matlab (7.4.0) and tried "a googol and one minus a googol" (I copied and pasted the numbers from the Google search linked in TFA), and it returned an answer of 0 (the correct answer of course being 1). If Wolfram can't even get it right, why in the world should a search engine be expected to?
 
2008-08-27 07:44:11 AM
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2008-08-27 08:06:18 AM
After all, this is the company that decided to raise $2,718,281,828 billion in its IPO, a reference to "e," the base of natural logarithms, and that invited job applicants who could solve a math puzzle.

They raised how much?
 
2008-08-27 08:13:25 AM
Archie Goodwin: After all, this is the company that decided to raise $2,718,281,828 billion in its IPO, a reference to "e," the base of natural logarithms, and that invited job applicants who could solve a math puzzle.

They raised how much?


Well, according to Google:

2,718,281,828 times one billion = 2.71828183×10^18

That's a lot of dollars.
 
2008-08-27 09:06:01 AM
sloppy shoes: This article was news to me that they even had a calculator function.

It works pretty well for simple conversions.

For exapmle, "22kg in lbs" returns:

22 kilograms = 48.5016977 pounds
 
2008-08-27 09:35:35 AM
I wonder who tried large mathematical equations all day until they had something (if you can call that something) to report.
 
2008-08-27 10:08:25 AM
"1,999,999,999,999,999 minus 1,999,999,999,999,995 incorrectly equals 0, but 1,999,999,999,999,999 minus 1,999,999,999,999,993." - Article

You can biatch about Google's math when you can write a complete sentence.
 
2008-08-27 10:56:06 AM
WildCardJack, you beat me to it! haha.

Which Farker made the headline for this article? ¿ "== FAIL!" ?
 
2008-08-27 11:30:02 AM
Grab any graphic calculator, fire up any programming language interpreter, or MATLAB or whatever. Type in the following, and decimal places do matter.

4.0/3.0

ans - 1

ans * 3

ans - 1

Hint: you don't get zero as your answer. Finite memory is finite.
 
2008-08-27 12:02:55 PM
As someone who doesn't play with infinitely huge numbers, Google serves me quite well.

If you for instance would like to know how many cubic centimeters Noah's ark was after converting it from cubic cubits based on the measures stated in the Bible, then Google does a quite fair job of both easily providing the information needed, and converting it.
 
jvl
2008-08-27 01:58:13 PM
sloppy shoes: Ehh...computers don't handle large numbers well. Nothing new.

So why did it handle it at all? Bignums libraries are available. They should either have used bignums or have admitted they couldn't cope.

/ Hates lazy programmers
 
2008-08-27 02:44:12 PM
I WAS TOLD THERE WOULD BE NO MATH
 
2008-08-27 03:23:30 PM
balthan: It works pretty well for simple conversions.

For exapmle, "22kg in lbs" returns:

22 kilograms = 48.5016977 pounds


I use it sometimes when I'm cooking, too. "cups in a quart" gives this:

1 US quart = 4 US cups

For anything other than conversions and constants I use Maple. Matlab is good for scripts and programs, but as a calculator, Maple prettyprints by default, and just plain looks better.
 
2008-08-27 04:19:36 PM
Archie Goodwin: After all, this is the company that decided to raise $2,718,281,828 billion in its IPO, a reference to "e," the base of natural logarithms, and that invited job applicants who could solve a math puzzle.

They raised how much?


Absolutely beautiful.

i38.tinypic.com

/Also, the headline is a test for fail... could return false...
 
2008-08-27 06:11:07 PM
meddleRPI: Grab any graphic calculator, fire up any programming language interpreter, or MATLAB or whatever. Type in the following, and decimal places do matter.

4.0/3.0

ans - 1

ans * 3

ans - 1

Hint: you don't get zero as your answer. Finite memory is finite.


Just to be a douche, my iphone got it right.

But yes, this has been a problem with memory since the beginning of time. Whoever wrote the article has clearly never taken a programming or math class before because that is one of the first things they tell you.
 
2008-08-27 06:42:53 PM
If you need Google to tell you what the solution to
x - (x - 1)
is, then the problem is yours, not theirs.
 
2008-08-27 07:02:40 PM
sloppy shoes: Just to be a douche, my iphone got it right.

Gnome's calculator and Google also get it right.
 
2008-08-27 07:27:32 PM
sloppy shoes: meddleRPI: Grab any graphic calculator, fire up any programming language interpreter, or MATLAB or whatever. Type in the following, and decimal places do matter.

4.0/3.0

ans - 1

ans * 3

ans - 1

Hint: you don't get zero as your answer. Finite memory is finite.

Just to be a douche, my iphone got it right.

But yes, this has been a problem with memory since the beginning of time. Whoever wrote the article has clearly never taken a programming or math class before because that is one of the first things they tell you.


Phones and simple calculators will actually get the answer right, because they can't handle display of numbers that small, so they round down.
 
2008-08-28 10:01:40 AM
meddleRPI: Phones and simple calculators will actually get the answer right, because they can't handle display of numbers that small, so they round down.

More like it's an order of operations issue, unless you explicitly type them in parenthesis to enforce the order.
 
2008-08-28 04:06:38 PM
Pretty much off topic but a friend of mine showed me the other day what google does if you type in "Find Chuck Norris" into google and hit "i'm feeling lucky"

//probably old news here on fark but it was new to me
 
Displayed 29 of 29 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report