I've done some minor surgery on the Vocabulary/Constants page. It's a
bit crude, but I hope my changes would assist likely readers.

Thanks,

-- 
Raul

On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 5:02 AM Martin Kreuzer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear all -
>
> About four years ago, I started this project
> 'Vocabulary/Constants' for I have felt a need to
> collect all those forum sprinkles (and gems) at a
> central place where they could be easily found,
> in a more more concise manner. My intention has
> been to provide a solid starting base for
> seasened newbies like me from where to explore further.
>
> Due to severe health problems I wasn't able to
> contribute in regular intervals any more as my
> capacity to concentrate on stuff dwindeled.
> (During all that time I have [however silently] followed forum activities.)
>
> Since a couple of month I am slowly getting
> better. But still not to a stage to presently
> tackle complete sections like 'Foreign Bases (b)'
> and others which are still missing. As Raul aptly
> pointed out, the page looks like it needs a lot of work.
>
> As for the section 'Further Reading', yes, the
> stub there has been a placeholder for pointers to
> more in-depth treatments of the subject, and I
> guess it is high time to get it replaced with the
> links suggested. (To have links concentrated here
> might even help to incorporate part of  their
> content more easily in the future.)
>
> Thank you all for your help over the last years.
>
> -M
>
> At 2021-10-23 12:58, you wrote:
>
> >I was just about to say that, Henry.
> >
> >Ancillary pages are intended to be linked from multiple NuVoc pages. I
> >thought there might be a need for a new one to address the matter of this
> >thread. But [[Vocabulary/Constants]]
> >  https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/Constants
> >seems to be its natural home for now.
> >
> >Note that the last section:
> >  https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/Constants#Further_reading
> >promises to answer Raul's question, but links to a missing page …or is it a
> >placeholder?
> >
> >Some NuVocc pages link into Pipermail, as a temporary measure, until someone
> >has the time to draw threads together.
> >For forum members who haven't used Pipermail, the link to the present
> >thread is:
> >  https://www.jsoftware.com/pipermail/general/2021-October/038701.html
> >
> >On Sat, 23 Oct 2021 at 13:44, Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Constants
> >
> > > Henry Rich
> >
> > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021, 2:03 PM Raul Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > I guess the question is: which wiki page should this be documented in?
> > > >
> > > > (If it's not already -- I guess another question is what should I
> > > > search on to attempt to find such documentation?)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Raul
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 5:44 AM Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > You might have a point, but I don't think it's worth taking the risk 
> > > > > of
> > > > > breaking existing code to make the change.  If you want a float, add a
> > > > > decimal point.
> > > > >
> > > > > Numbers close to IMAX are always troublesome because of tolerance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Henry Rich
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/23/2021 4:13 AM, ethiejiesa via General wrote:
> > > > > > The issue I find surprising is that integer literals in the range
> > > > > > 16b8000000000000000 to 16b80000000000004ff, i.e. INT_MAX+1 to
> > > > INT_MAX+1024, all
> > > > > > parse into the integer precision 9223372036854775807, i.e. INT_MAX.
> > > > This is not
> > > > > > the same thing as (<:2^63) which has floating precision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My expectation was that non-exact representations for (2^63x) and
> > > > above---
> > > > > > e.g. 16b8000000000000000---would parse into floating precision
> > > numbers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As it stands, this means that integer precision values equal to
> > > > > > 16b7fffffffffffffff cannot be trusted and must be handled specially,
> > > as
> > > > > > demonstrated nicely in Raul's examples below.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Henry Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >> 16b8000000000000401 cannot be exactly represented.  There is a band
> > > > of floats near 2^63 that are converted to (<:2^63).
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Henry Rich
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On 10/23/2021 1:42 AM, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > > > >>> I do not see why I should expect these to be the same number:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>      2^.92233720368547768323
> > > > > >>> 66.3219
> > > > > >>>      2^.16b8000000000000401
> > > > > >>> 63
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> One is larger than can be represented using a 64 bit integer, and
> > > so
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>      datatype 92233720368547768323
> > > > > >>> floating
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> That said, I do think that there's a problem with the other one.
> > > That
> > > > > >>> one is also larger than can be represented using a 64 bit signed
> > > > > >>> integer:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>      (2^63x)-16b8000000000000401
> > > > > >>> 1
> > > > > >>>      (2^63x)-16b8000000000000000
> > > > > >>> 1
> > > > > >>>      (2^63x)-16b7fffffffffffffff
> > > > > >>> 1
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> So there's a certain range of numbers here which get treated ...
> > > > oddly.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > For information about J forums see
> > > http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > > https://www.avg.com
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> > > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to