On 10/5/18 6:09 AM, Giuliano Augusto Faulin Belinassi wrote: > Thank you for the review. I will address all these issues :-). > >> Imagine a pause here while I lookup isolation of radicals.... It's been >> a long time... OK. Sure. I see what you're doing here... > > Sorry, but I really did not understand your comment. Should I write a > shorter comment for that function? Not at all -- I was just trying to be funny. I was struggling to understand the comment so I tried to recreate the steps necessary to transform the equation myself. And quickly realized that it's been 30 years since I've had to do that kind of algebra :-)
> >> Not sure what you mean for safety reasons. The calculations to produce >> "c" then convert it into a REAL_VALUE_TYPE all make sense. Just not >> sure what this line is really meant to do. > > Imagine the following case: > Let "c" be the real constant such that it is certain that for every x >> "c", 1/sqrt(x*x + 1) = 1. > Suppose now that our calculation leads us to a c' < "c" due to a minor > imprecision. > The logic here is that 10 * c' > "c" and everything will work, thus it is > safer. > Note however that I cannot prove that 10 * c' > "c", but I would be > really surprised > if this does not holds. Ah. I understand. This probably warrants a slightly better comment. Jeff
