>From one following along who knows fairly little about floating-point math (the Toronto/McCarthy paper looks very informative!):
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:13 AM, George Neuner <gneun...@comcast.net> wrote: > As Philip McGrath mentioned already, you can specify single precision at > least for input values ... but I think inexact (i.e. floating point) math > in Racket all is done at maximum hardware precision and the result coerced > back to the input precision if possible. For purposes of numerical > analysis, that is not the same as performing all operations at the input > precision. > Is this confirmed to be what Racket does? If so, are the observable differences vs. the operations working at the input precision because of error and error propagation (i.e., if starting from exact values, the implementation using double-precision under the hood would sometimes produce results with less error), or something else? -Philip -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
