On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 at 11:19, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>
> On 2023-02-18 03:52:51 +, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 at 01:47, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > > On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 at 12:41, Greg Ewing via Python-list
> > > > To avoid it you would need to use an algorithm that computes
On 2023-02-18 03:52:51 +, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 at 01:47, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 at 12:41, Greg Ewing via Python-list
> > > To avoid it you would need to use an algorithm that computes nth
> > > roots directly rather than raising to the power 1/n.
On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 at 01:47, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 at 12:41, Greg Ewing via Python-list
> wrote:
> >
> > On 18/02/23 7:42 am, Richard Damon wrote:
> > > On 2/17/23 5:27 AM, Stephen Tucker wrote:
> > >> None of the digits in RootNZZZ's string should be different from the
On 2/17/23 15:03, Grant Edwards wrote:
> Every fall, the groups were again full of a new crop of people who had
> just discovered all sorts of bugs in the way
> implemented floating point, and pointing them to a nicely written
> document that explained it never did any good.
But to be fair,
On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 at 12:41, Greg Ewing via Python-list
wrote:
>
> On 18/02/23 7:42 am, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 2/17/23 5:27 AM, Stephen Tucker wrote:
> >> None of the digits in RootNZZZ's string should be different from the
> >> corresponding digits in RootN.
> >
> > Only if the storage
On 18/02/23 7:42 am, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/23 5:27 AM, Stephen Tucker wrote:
None of the digits in RootNZZZ's string should be different from the
corresponding digits in RootN.
Only if the storage format was DECIMAL.
Note that using decimal wouldn't eliminate this particular problem,
On 2023-02-17, Mats Wichmann wrote:
> And... this topic as a whole comes up over and over again, like
> everywhere.
That's an understatement.
I remember it getting rehashed over and over again in various USENET
groups 35 years ago when when the VAX 11/780 BSD machine on which I
read news
On 2/17/23 11:42, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/23 5:27 AM, Stephen Tucker wrote:
The key factor here is IEEE floating point is storing numbers in BINARY,
not DECIMAL, so a multiply by 1000 will change the representation of the
number, and thus the possible resolution errors.
Store you
On 2023-02-17, Richard Damon wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Perhaps this observation should be brought to the attention of the IEEE. I
>> would like to know their response to it.
>
> That is why they have developed the Decimal Floating point format, to
> handle people with those sorts of problems.
>
> They
On 2023-02-17 14:39:42 +, Weatherby,Gerard wrote:
> IEEE did not define a standard for floating point arithmetics. They
> designed multiple standards, including a decimal float point one.
> Although decimal floating point (DFP) hardware used to be
> manufactured, I couldn’t find any current
On 2023-02-17 10:27:08 +, Stephen Tucker wrote:
> This is a hugely controversial claim, I know, but I would consider this
> behaviour to be a serious deficiency in the IEEE standard.
>
> Consider an integer N consisting of a finitely-long string of digits in
> base 10.
>
> Consider the
On 2023-02-17 08:38:58 -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On 2/17/23 03:27, Stephen Tucker wrote:
> > Thanks, one and all, for your reponses.
> >
> > This is a hugely controversial claim, I know, but I would consider this
> > behaviour to be a serious deficiency in the IEEE standard.
>
> No matter
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 at 10:29, Stephen Tucker wrote:
>
> Thanks, one and all, for your reponses.
>
> This is a hugely controversial claim, I know, but I would consider this
> behaviour to be a serious deficiency in the IEEE standard.
[snip]
>
> Perhaps this observation should be brought to the
On 2/17/23 5:27 AM, Stephen Tucker wrote:
Thanks, one and all, for your reponses.
This is a hugely controversial claim, I know, but I would consider this
behaviour to be a serious deficiency in the IEEE standard.
Consider an integer N consisting of a finitely-long string of digits in
base 10.
On 2/17/23 03:27, Stephen Tucker wrote:
> Thanks, one and all, for your reponses.
>
> This is a hugely controversial claim, I know, but I would consider this
> behaviour to be a serious deficiency in the IEEE standard.
No matter how you do it, there are always tradeoffs and inaccuracies
moving
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 10:27:08, Stephen Tucker wrote:[Head-posting undone.]
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 6:49 PM Peter Pearson
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:17:20 +, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
>> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 07:12, Stephen Tucker
>> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >> I have just produced the
?
-Original Message-
From: Python-list On
Behalf Of Stephen Tucker
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 5:27 AM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Precision Tail-off?
Thanks, one and all, for your reponses.
This is a hugely controversial claim, I know, but I would consider this
behaviour
until a few
years ago, but they seem to have gone dark: https://twitter.com/SilMinds
From: Python-list on
behalf of Thomas Passin
Date: Friday, February 17, 2023 at 9:02 AM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Precision Tail-off?
*** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution
On 2/17/2023 5:27 AM, Stephen Tucker wrote:
Thanks, one and all, for your reponses.
This is a hugely controversial claim, I know, but I would consider this
behaviour to be a serious deficiency in the IEEE standard.
Consider an integer N consisting of a finitely-long string of digits in
base
As a follow-up to my previous message, I have just produced the following
log on IDLE, for your information:
--
>>> math.e ** (math.log
(12345678900) / 3)
4.979338592181741e+16
>>> 10 ** (math.log10
Thanks, one and all, for your reponses.
This is a hugely controversial claim, I know, but I would consider this
behaviour to be a serious deficiency in the IEEE standard.
Consider an integer N consisting of a finitely-long string of digits in
base 10.
Consider the infinitely-precise cube root
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 11:17:20 +, Oscar Benjamin wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 07:12, Stephen Tucker wrote:
[snip]
>> I have just produced the following log in IDLE (admittedly, in Python
>> 2.7.10 and, yes I know that it has been superseded).
>>
>> It appears to show a precision tail-off as
)
8.881784197001252e-16
1E-99
From: Python-list on
behalf of Michael Torrie
Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 5:52 PM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: Precision Tail-off?
*** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening
attachments or clicking on links. ***
On 2
On 2/14/23 00:09, Stephen Tucker wrote:
> I have two questions:
> 1. Is there a straightforward explanation for this or is it a bug?
To you 1/3 may be an exact fraction, and the definition of raising a
number to that power means a cube root which also has an exact answer,
but to the computer, 1/3
Use Python3
Use the decimal module: https://docs.python.org/3/library/decimal.html
From: Python-list on
behalf of Stephen Tucker
Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 2:11 AM
To: Python
Subject: Precision Tail-off?
*** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 07:12, Stephen Tucker wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have just produced the following log in IDLE (admittedly, in Python
> 2.7.10 and, yes I know that it has been superseded).
>
> It appears to show a precision tail-off as the supplied float gets bigger.
>
> I have two questions:
>
26 matches
Mail list logo
