Hi,
IEEE says that real numbers are normalized (a few below 10^(-16) may be
not [gradual underflow]), so that they look like 0.1ddd2^ex. Then only
ddd and ex are kept:
0.1 = 0.00011.. 2^0 = 0.11001100.. 2^(-3) - (11001100.., -3)
0.2 = 0.0011.. 2^0 = 0.11001100.. 2^(-2) - (11001100.., -2)
0.3 =
Christian Hoffmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
0.1 would be stored as (1 + 0.6)*2^(-4) and 0.2 would be stored as (1
+ 0.6)*2^(-3), whereas 0.3 would be stored as (1 + 0.2)*2^(-2). You
should expect 56 decimal (binary?) place accuracy on 0.1, 55 place
accuracy on 0.2, and 54 place accuracy
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:52:09 +0100, you wrote:
Hi,
IEEE says that real numbers are normalized (a few below 10^(-16) may be
not [gradual underflow]), so that they look like 0.1ddd2^ex. Then only
ddd and ex are kept:
0.1 = 0.00011.. 2^0 = 0.11001100.. 2^(-3) - (11001100.., -3)
Right, that's
Prompted by Peter Dalgard's recent elegant intbin function,
I have been playing with the extension to converting reals to binary
representation. The decimal part can be done like this:
decbase - function(x, n=52, base=2) {
if(n) {
x - x*base
paste(trunc(x), decbase(x%%1, n-1, base),
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:55:05 -, Simon Fear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote :
Prompted by Peter Dalgard's recent elegant intbin function,
I have been playing with the extension to converting reals to binary
representation. The decimal part can be done like this:
decbase - function(x, n=52, base=2) {
