Kim, I'm flattered! Will try to live up to that trust on my next post :-)
On 24/03/2010 05:52, Kim Gräsman wrote:
> Heh, I had a whole answer prepared about IEEE floating-point accuracy
> [1], but I thought the numbers looked OK :)
>
> Cheers,
> - Kim
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_
Heh, I had a whole answer prepared about IEEE floating-point accuracy
[1], but I thought the numbers looked OK :)
Cheers,
- Kim
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point#Accuracy_problems
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 22:47, Tom Corcoran wrote:
> Apologies guys, it made complete sense at the ti
Haha... it happens.
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Tom Corcoran wrote:
> Apologies guys, it made complete sense at the time...clearly I need to
> lay of the cr**k pie, damn.
>
> On 23/03/2010 21:28, Kim Gräsman wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 22:02, Tom Corcoran
> wrote:
> >
Apologies guys, it made complete sense at the time...clearly I need to
lay of the cr**k pie, damn.
On 23/03/2010 21:28, Kim Gräsman wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 22:02, Tom Corcoran wrote:
>
>> I found what looks like a Math error:
>>
>> 1276.595744680851/47 = 27.1616115889542
Are those not correct answers?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Tom Corcoran wrote:
> I found what looks like a Math error:
>
> 1276.595744680851/47 = 27.16161158895428
> 1276.6/5 = 255.32
>
> tom.
>
>
>
> --
> Download
Hi Tom,
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 22:02, Tom Corcoran wrote:
> I found what looks like a Math error:
>
> 1276.595744680851/47 = 27.16161158895428
> 1276.6/5 = 255.32
My mental arithmetic is a little slow... What do you think is the problem?
Thanks,
- Kim
-
