At 15:36 18/06/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>> ... But this is quite annoying :
>
>Yes :-), but whenever you use irrational numbers (cannot be represented
>exactly in a limited precision number system) ...
Correction: an irrational number is defined to be any number not
representable as the ratio of two integers. Example, SQRT(2), as the
Pythagoreans found to their chagrin, many centuries ago.
By your definition, 1/3 is irrational (it's not) because no finite
sequence of 3's (post decimal point) represents it exactly.
>
>Ian.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: CMOUR
>> Sent: 18 June 2001 14:45
>> To: ql-users
>> Cc: CMOUR
>> Subject: RE: [ql-users] NEXT in FOR-loop
>>
>>
>> Thank's a lot for all the answers. But this is quite annoying
>> : especially
>> because behavior is not the same for PRINT and INT. Better if
>> PRINT returns
>> something like 2.99999 (in fact SMS loves exponential form I personaly
>> hate). I'm not sure but I think even FDEC$(n, 9, 8) returns 3.00000.
>>
>> Claude
>>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : ZN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Envoy� : lundi 18 juin 2001 15:36
>> � : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Objet : Re: [ql-users] NEXT in FOR-loop
>>
>>
>> >> As I see a question about FOR/NEXT loops, I have mine:
>> >> the subsequent peice of code gives me an unexpected result
>> >> FOR n = 2.95 to 3.05 STEP 0.01 : print n, INT(n)
>> >> Why ?
>>
