Hello,
> ...an irrational number is defined to be any number not
> representable as the ratio of two integers.
I know that definition, but isn't an infinite number of decimal (or
binary) places what you end up with as a result?
I accept that 1/3 is not irrational - I am guilty of using the term
inaccurately - but it is still one of those values that cannot be
represented exactly in a limited precision number system such as that
on the QL, and other computers - allegedly :)
I would normally stick to integers or inverse powers of 2 in FOR loops
too.
I all my years of commercial (business) software development and most
of my own hobby programming I've never needed to use floating point
data types. At work, the main language we used had variable length
decimal fields of up to 80 digits and the sums were done by special
hardware. To get decimal places we just multiplied everything by the
required power of 10 and then printed the . in the right (or sometimes
wrong!) place in the reports.
I would have liked to have 32-bit integer variables in SBASIC. The
Acorn Atom I believe had 32-bit integers (but no floats unless you
bought the add-on ROM).
Ian.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mlaverne
> Sent: 21 June 2001 07:08
> To: ql-users
> Cc: mlaverne
> Subject: RE: [ql-users] NEXT in FOR-loop
>
>
> At 15:36 18/06/2001 +0100, you wrote:
> >> ... But this is quite annoying :
> >
> >Yes :-), but whenever you use irrational numbers (cannot be
> represented
> >exactly in a limited precision number system) ...
>
> Correction: an irrational number is defined to be any number not
> representable as the ratio of two integers. Example, SQRT(2), as the
> Pythagoreans found to their chagrin, many centuries ago.
>
> By your definition, 1/3 is irrational (it's not) because no finite
> sequence of 3's (post decimal point) represents it exactly.
>
> >
> >Ian.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: CMOUR
> >> Sent: 18 June 2001 14:45
> >> To: ql-users
> >> Cc: CMOUR
> >> Subject: RE: [ql-users] NEXT in FOR-loop
> >>
> >>
> >> Thank's a lot for all the answers. But this is quite annoying
> >> : especially
> >> because behavior is not the same for PRINT and INT. Better if
> >> PRINT returns
> >> something like 2.99999 (in fact SMS loves exponential form
> I personaly
> >> hate). I'm not sure but I think even FDEC$(n, 9, 8)
> returns 3.00000.
> >>
> >> Claude
> >>
> >> -----Message d'origine-----
> >> De : ZN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >> Envoyé : lundi 18 juin 2001 15:36
> >> À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Objet : Re: [ql-users] NEXT in FOR-loop
> >>
> >>
> >> >> As I see a question about FOR/NEXT loops, I have mine:
> >> >> the subsequent peice of code gives me an unexpected result
> >> >> FOR n = 2.95 to 3.05 STEP 0.01 : print n, INT(n)
> >> >> Why ?
> >>
>
>
>
Visit our website at http://www.ubswarburg.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed,
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore
does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents
of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If
verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This
message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.
