3!:3 (100&*)4.57 4.34 4.44 e300000000000000 0800000000000000 0300000000000000 0100000000000000 0300000000000000 0000000000907c40 0000000000207b40 0100000000c07b40
3!:3 (-~1.1)+457 434 444 e300000000000000 0800000000000000 0300000000000000 0100000000000000 0300000000000000 0000000000907c40 0000000000207b40 0000000000c07b40 On Sat, May 16, 2020, 8:22 PM Don Guinn <dongu...@gmail.com> wrote: > 0j16":,.(100&*)4.57 4.34 4.44 > > 457.0000000000000000 > > 434.0000000000000000 > > 444.0000000000000600 > > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 12:34 AM 'Bo Jacoby' via Programming < > programm...@jsoftware.com> wrote: > > > > > (100&*)4.57 4.34 4.44 > > > > 457 434 444 > > > > +./(100&*)4.57 4.34 4.44 > > 2.63185e_11 > > > > (+./&.(100&*))4.57 4.34 4.44 > > 2.63185e_13 > > > > > > > > It doesn't work. > > Thanks. > > Bo. > > > > Den fredag den 15. maj 2020 20.58.47 CEST skrev Hauke Rehr < > > hauke.r...@uni-jena.de>: > > > > 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 < > > henryhr...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > 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 > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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
