my 2¢
the result is absolutely correct;
both Henry Rich and Devon McCormick showed why
If you’re dealing with values with two decimal places
everywhere, either apply rounding after each operation,
or (better imho) work on 100-fold values and divide by
100 in the very last step of your computation.
you could also define your own data structure but then
you’re better off using x: in the first place.
Either you want to deal with rationals (x:) or with
whole numbers (algorithm&.(100&*)).
Am 15.05.20 um 17:20 schrieb 'Bo Jacoby' via Programming:
The expression
4.57+.(4.34+.4.44)
should evaluate like this
4.34+.4.44
0.02
4.57+.0.02
0.01
but it does evaluate to
5.39568e_12
which is a useless and incorrect result.
= is tolerant, why isn't +. ?
Thanks.
Bo. Den fredag den 15. maj 2020 16.24.10 CEST skrev Henry Rich
<[email protected]>:
What's wrong with it?
0j19 ": 4.57 4.34 4.44
4.5700000000000002842 4.3399999999999998579 4.4400000000000003908
Henry Rich
On 5/15/2020 10:17 AM, 'Bo Jacoby' via Programming wrote:
+./4.57 4.34 4.44
5.39568e_12
NB. this was not the correct answer. A bug?
+./x:4.57 4.34 4.44
1r100
NB. this was a work-around
Thanks!
Bo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
----------------------
mail written using NEO
neo-layout.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
