At 10:04 AM 11/3/98 +0100, Bojan Antonovic wrote:
>> I think you just disproved yourself. On the second example, rounding after
2
>> decimal digits gives the wrong answer, but round after 10 digits and you
get
>> the correct answer, or very close to it. So this shows how having more
>
>FALSE ! If I have a precision of 10^(-n) and the number is 10^(-n-x) with
x>0
>than you have the same problem.
>
>You just have to extend my example ...
But then if you increase the precision you get the correct answer (within a
small epsilon). I remember a case when I had numerical analysis that when we
ran it in single precision, we got no correct digits, when we ran it in double
precision we got 6 or so correct digits.
+-------------------------------------------------+
| Jud McCranie [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| |
| You'll never need more than 640 megs of memory. |
+-------------------------------------------------+
