On 7 May 2010 12:15:05 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Tom Ross wrote:
Consistency of result has a lot to be said for it as does meeting
customer expectation. I don't want my checking account handled in
either binary or floating point.
Many financial institutions do not allow the use of any
Consistency of result has a lot to be said for it as does meeting
customer expectation. I don't want my checking account handled in
either binary or floating point.
Many financial institutions do not allow the use of any floating-point
data, they use only fixed-point data, often using the
In listserv%201005031819000391.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 05/03/2010
at 06:19 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
I'm calling that simply incompetent display-to-numeric conversion,
I can call a rock an orange, but I still won't be able to get juice out of
it. The problem is clearly in the
In listserv%201005031342142910.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 05/03/2010
at 01:42 PM, Tom Marchant m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com said:
Decimal Floating Point doesn't have this problem.
ObClinton That depends on what this is. DFP does have that problem when
dividing by, e.g., 3, 7, 11.
--
Shmuel
I can't leave these alone.
On Thu, 6 May 2010 11:42:07 -0400, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote:
In listserv%201005031819000391.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 05/03/2010
at 06:19 PM, Paul Gilmartin said:
I'm calling that simply incompetent display-to-numeric conversion,
I can call a rock an orange, but
In listserv%201005061219411411.0...@bama.ua.edu, on 05/06/2010
at 12:19 PM, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com said:
The discussion concerned apparent imprecise conversion of,
e.g. 1.75 to IEE (or hex) FP.
Confirming what I wrote; it's a numeric conversion issue, not a display
issue.
--
On 05/03/2010 11:22 AM, McKown, John wrote:
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: (may or may not be on topic) Floating point arithmetic
Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 8:18 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: Re: (may or may not be on topic) Floating point arithmetic
On 05/03/2010 11:22 AM, McKown, John wrote:
-Original
On 4 May 2010 06:37:45 -0700, john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown,
John) wrote:
Hum. Makes me wonder if any hardware will ever introduce rational numbers. One
rational register
which is 128 bits(?) long. It contains a 64 bit numerator and 64 bit
denominator. That solves the problem.
It
On Tue, 4 May 2010 09:36:47 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote:
Hum. Makes me wonder if any hardware will ever introduce rational numbers.
One rational register
which is 128 bits(?) long. It contains a 64 bit numerator and 64 bit
denominator. That solves the problem.
It could be. Depending on how
On 4 May 2010 11:49, Paul Gilmartin paulgboul...@aim.com wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2010 09:36:47 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote:
Hum. Makes me wonder if any hardware will ever introduce rational numbers.
One rational register
which is 128 bits(?) long. It contains a 64 bit numerator and 64 bit
I wish CoBOL had a long type that is not limited by normal size
limits.A number that can be defined with a size as long as any
string the computer could handle. Sure, it would be as inefficient
as heck, but occasionally it would be useful.
Languages better suited for math could use it
This might be of interest to those wanting to do floating point arithmetic.
Please *NOTE* I do NOT know if this pertains to IBM or not.
http://floating-point-gui.de/
Ed
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List
[mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Gould
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 10:58 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Subject: (may or may not be on topic) Floating point arithmetic
This might be of interest to those wanting to do
On Mon, 3 May 2010 08:58:16 -0700, Ed Gould wrote:
This might be of interest to those wanting to do floating point arithmetic.
Please *NOTE* I do NOT know if this pertains to IBM or not.
http://floating-point-gui.de/
Common decimal numbers such as 0.1 can not be accurately
represented in
On 3 May 2010 11:42:47 -0700, m42tom-ibmm...@yahoo.com (Tom Marchant)
wrote:
Common decimal numbers such as 0.1 can not be accurately
represented in binary. If you divide X'1' by X'A', you will get
X'0.1999'. Or try this with your favorite hexadecimal
calculator. Divide X'1000'
Mornin' --
This should be required reading in every Engineering/Physics/Computer
Sciences class What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About
Floating Point. (
http://docs.sun.com/source/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html )
The question comes up about once a month on the Perl boards (usually
under the
On Mon, 3 May 2010 14:01:16 -0700, Bob goolsby wrote:
Mornin' --
This should be required reading in every Engineering/Physics/Computer
Sciences class What Every Computer Scientist Should Know About
Floating Point. ( http://docs.sun.com/source/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html )
The question comes up
On 3 May 2010 11:42:47 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 08:58:16 -0700, Ed Gould wrote:
This might be of interest to those wanting to do floating point arithmetic.
Please *NOTE* I do NOT know if this pertains to IBM or not.
http://floating-point-gui.de/
Common
19 matches
Mail list logo
