Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

12
  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ Is 'rounded to 2 digits' a firm rule? Neither of the current answers do this. \$\endgroup\$
    – Dingus
    Commented Aug 2, 2020 at 12:37
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ At 969 years, floating point imprecision becomes significant (the correct answer is 28874468684703116351749853 point something, while a simple calculation with doubles returns 28874468684703116489129984.00. Are you sure you want to set the upper limit to such a high value? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 2, 2020 at 13:00
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Ok, I set the max age to 122, which keeps the maximum age to 295.15. Thanks! \$\endgroup\$
    – Razetime
    Commented Aug 2, 2020 at 13:06
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ ...also I imagine trailing zeros may be implicit, right? (i.e. that 0.5 is an acceptable output when given an input of 20 [rather than 0.50]) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 2, 2020 at 15:03
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ This question misinterprets the formula. n and d are the wrong way around. From the source paper: (equivalent) human_age = 16 ln(dog_age) + 31 \$\endgroup\$
    – roblogic
    Commented Dec 12, 2020 at 4:36