On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 5:01 PM Nimp O <tr...@outlook.com> wrote: > Perhaps this upper bound could be removed, at least for x:, since I believe > the main use cases for tolerance on this verb would be bigger values, as > illustrated in my earlier example. > At least in this context, I can't see anything catastrophic happening by > increasing this tolerance, on the contrary. > But maybe this change cannot be made in such an isolated way.
You definitely need an upper bound (and a lower bound). Values like 10 would be meaningless (and negative values are also meaningless). Here's an implementation of tolerant equality: teq=: |@- <: ".@'ct' * >.&| If ct were 1, then all numbers would be equal. Even values close to 1 can be confusing: ct=:0.5 1 teq 2 1 If ct is 2^-n and n is an integer, n-1 approximately represents the number of significant bits in the numbers being compared. This concept is important for floating point representation (and "disastrous" for exact representations). That said, it might be useful to allow larger values than the current implementation. (But how by much?) Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
