On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Peter Bex <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:03:41AM -0700, Matt Welland wrote: .... >> 2. Taking the inverse exponent (i.e. result^(1/n) ) runs into trouble >> at n=144. Anyone care to explain why that is and is there a numerical >> methods trick to work around it? > > You divide the inexact 1.0 by the number. Try doing an exact division > like (/ 1 n) or just (/ n). This will produce a rational number which > is exact and not limited in any way.
Ah, yeah, I forgot to mention that I tried both 1.0 and 1 and got the same result. Matt -=- > > Cheers, > Peter > -- > http://sjamaan.ath.cx > -- > "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer > is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically > and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic > experience much like composing poetry or music." > -- Donald Knuth > > _______________________________________________ > Chicken-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users > _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
