Wait until the English test.
Yes, but this guy is supposedly a qualified electrician.As I wrote to winston, you have to realise that some people just don't have an understanding of the concept of an equation, or even the effect of shifting decimal points. It's sad, but true.
Maybe (although I don't recall an indication in this thread about what the OP 'was').Yes, but this guy is supposedly a qualified electrician.
Maybe, but that still doesn't explain why you are dragging up an ancient thread in order to find that opportunity.Where you see "less than helpful" I see an opportunity to try and make someone wake up and smell the coffee before they kill someone.
Maybe, but that still doesn't explain why you are dragging up an ancient thread in order to find that opportunity.
Kind Regards, John
Fair enough. Yes, probably, but I hadn't seen that (and can't read minds!) ....Something to do with this maybe //www.diynot.com/diy/threads/zs-with-tt-system.477306/
No need to do that - just alternate the multiplications and divisions. In other words, simply calculate:When the lotto was first launched in 1994, the odds of winning a jackpot was calculated as 49x48x47x46x45x44 (6 numbers) divided by 6x5x4x3x2x1, which gave you odds as 1 in 13.983816 or roughly 1 in 14million.
Trouble was, if you were to calculate, most basic calculators could not compute the multiplication of the larger numbers above (49x48x47x46x45x44) so the trick is to decimalise the numbers ...
and yet it gives correct results
Indeed, and that's obviously because he divided by 10 ('decimalising') 6 times. However, I imagine he realised that he was getting an answer 'in millions' - but he would probably have got much more confused if one was choosing some other number (other than 6) of numbers! In any event, I've just shown him a a less fiddly way of doing it (with a limited calculator), which actually gives the really correct answer!No it doesn't, you're off by a factor of 10⁶ in both cases.
Thanks for an interesting alternative method, I did that and got 13,983,815.99 (close enough John)No need to do that - just alternate the multiplications and divisions. In other words, simply calculate:
49 ÷ 6 x 48 ÷ 5 x 47 ÷ 4 x 46 ÷ 3 x 45 ÷ 2 * 44 ÷ 1
... doing it that way, the calculator never has to cope with a number greater than the final answer.
Kind Regards, John
indeed i was, thanks for pointing this out.No it doesn't, you're off by a factor of 10⁶ in both cases.
Fair enough. For what it's worth, my calculator gave exactly 13,983,816!Thanks for an interesting alternative method, I did that and got 13,983,815.99 (close enough John)
They virtually all work like that (as does any computer). However, note that, although they can handle, and display, unbelievably large numbers, the precision is limited - in your case seemingly to 8 significant figures. That means that, say, 12,345,678,123 would be treated as 12,345,678,000 and displayed as 1.2345678e10. If you then divided that by some (large) number, the answer could/would be very slightly incorrect, due to the ceiling of precision.Amazingly my simple LG Phone calculator managed to calculate 491x492x493x494x495x496x497x498x499=1.7839949e24 ... Cricky, I gave up it kept going well past power of 300, I will find out what its limit is.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local