In article 4a1da210$0$90265$14726...@news.sunsite.dk,
Mark Dickinson dicki...@gmail.com wrote:
This is getting rather long. Perhaps I should put the above comments
together into a 'post-PEP' document.
Yes, you should. Better explanation of floating point benefits everyone
when widely
On Thursday 21 May 2009 08:50:48 pm R. David Murray wrote:
In py3k Eric Smith and Mark Dickinson have implemented Gay's floating
point algorithm for Python so that the shortest repr that will round
trip correctly is what is used as the floating point repr
Little question: what was the
In article 200905271107.21750.ky...@uh.cu,
Luis Zarrabeitia ky...@uh.cu wrote:
On Thursday 21 May 2009 08:50:48 pm R. David Murray wrote:
In py3k Eric Smith and Mark Dickinson have implemented Gay's floating
point algorithm for Python so that the shortest repr that will round
trip
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 02:33:38 pm Ned Deily wrote:
In article 200905271107.21750.ky...@uh.cu,
Little question: what was the goal of such a change? (is there a pep for
me to
read?)
See discussion starting here:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.devel/103191/
Thank you.
--
Luis Zarrabeitia ky...@uh.cu wrote:
On Thursday 21 May 2009 08:50:48 pm R. David Murray wrote:
In py3k Eric Smith and Mark Dickinson have implemented Gay's floating
point algorithm for Python so that the shortest repr that will round
trip correctly is what is used as the floating point
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2009 16:21:19 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
... (0) Opposite is not well-defined unless you have a dichotomy. In the
... (1/3) Why do you jump to the conclusion that pi=3 implies that only
... (1/2) If you get rid of real numbers, then obviously you
On Mon, 25 May 2009 23:10:02 -0700, Scott David Daniels wrote:
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2009 16:21:19 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
... (0) Opposite is not well-defined unless you have a dichotomy. In
the ... (1/3) Why do you jump to the conclusion that pi=3 implies that
only
In message pan.2009.05.25.05.22...@remove.this.cybersource.com.au, Steven
D'Aprano wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:47:51 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:
.. Gregory Chaitin among others has been trying to
On Wed, 27 May 2009 11:33:51 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Chaitin is trying to use only computable numbers. Pi is computable, as
is e, sqrt(2), the Feigenbaum constant, and many others familiar to us
all.
Trouble is, they only make up 0% of the reals. It's the other 100% he
wants to
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Mon, 25 May 2009 16:21:19 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:
Interesting kind of mindset, that assumes that the opposite of real must
be integer or a subset thereof...
No, but
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message mailman.525.1242941777.8015.python-l...@python.org, Christian
Heimes wrote:
Welcome to IEEE 754 floating point land! :)
It used to be worse in the days before IEEE 754 became widespread. Anybody
remember a certain Prof William Kahan from
In message mailman.702.1243237468.8015.python-l...@python.org, Dave Angel
wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Anybody remember a certain Prof William Kahan from Berkeley ...
I remember the professor. He was responsible for large parts of the
Intel 8087 specification, which later got
Dennis Lee Bieber wlfr...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:47:51 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:
As for exactitude in physics, Gregory Chaitin among others has been trying
to rework physics
In message mailman.525.1242941777.8015.python-l...@python.org, Christian
Heimes wrote:
Welcome to IEEE 754 floating point land! :)
It used to be worse in the days before IEEE 754 became widespread. Anybody
remember a certain Prof William Kahan from Berkeley, and the foreword he
wrote to the
In message 7b986ef0-d118-4e0c-
afef-3c6385a4c...@b7g2000pre.googlegroups.com, rustom wrote:
For a mathematician there are no inexact numbers; for a physicist no
exact ones.
On the contrary, mathematics have worked out a precise theory of
inexactness.
As for exactitude in physics, Gregory
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:47:51 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:
As for exactitude in physics, Gregory Chaitin among others has been trying
to rework physics to get rid of real numbers
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message mailman.525.1242941777.8015.python-l...@python.org, Christian
Heimes wrote:
Welcome to IEEE 754 floating point land! :)
It used to be worse in the days before IEEE 754 became widespread. Anybody
remember a certain Prof William Kahan from Berkeley, and
In message 9mwdntfmpprjqotxnz2dnuvz_vadn...@giganews.com, Erik Max Francis
wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message mailman.525.1242941777.8015.python-l...@python.org,
Christian Heimes wrote:
Welcome to IEEE 754 floating point land! :)
It used to be worse in the days before IEEE
On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Dave Angel da...@ieee.org wrote:
By decreeing that the value of PI is 3?
Only in Ohio.
Please, we're smarter than that in Ohio. In fact, while the Indiana
legislature was learning about PI, we had guys inventing the airplane.
In message mailman.674.1243192904.8015.python-l...@python.org, Dennis Lee
Bieber wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:47:51 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand declaimed the following in
gmane.comp.python.general:
As for exactitude in physics, Gregory Chaitin among others
On Mon, 25 May 2009 16:21:19 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message mailman.674.1243192904.8015.python-l...@python.org, Dennis
Lee Bieber wrote:
On Sun, 24 May 2009 22:47:51 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand declaimed the following in
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:05 PM, seanm...@gmail.com wrote:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
satisfying, and I am hoping someone can explain the following to me:
4 / 5.0
0.80004
4 / 5.0 is 0.8. No more, no less. So what's up with that 4 at the end.
On May 22, 6:56 am, AggieDan04 danb...@yahoo.com wrote:
The error in this example is roughly equivalent to the width of a red
blood cell compared to the distance between Earth and the sun. There
are very few applications that need more accuracy than that.
For a mathematician there are no
On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:30:17 -0700, Gary Herron wrote:
In py3k Eric Smith and Mark Dickinson have implemented Gay's floating
point algorithm for Python so that the shortest repr that will round
trip correctly is what is used as the floating point repr
--David
Which won't change
On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:56:08 -0700, AggieDan04 wrote:
The error in this example is roughly equivalent to the width of a red
blood cell compared to the distance between Earth and the sun. There
are very few applications that need more accuracy than that.
Which is fine if the error *remains*
On May 22, 3:28 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 21 May 2009 18:30:17 -0700, Gary Herron wrote:
In py3k Eric Smith and Mark Dickinson have implemented Gay's floating
point algorithm for Python so that the shortest repr that will round
trip correctly
On Fri, 22 May 2009 13:05:59 -0700, Mark Dickinson wrote:
With a sigh of relief,
Yay! We now will have lots of subtle floating point bugs that people
can't see! Ignorance is bliss and what you don't know about floating
point can't hurt you!
Why do you think this change will give rise to
seanm...@gmail.com wrote:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
satisfying, and I am hoping someone can explain the following to me:
4 / 5.0
0.80004
4 / 5.0 is 0.8. No more, no less. So what's up with that 4 at the end.
It bothers me.
Read
seanm...@gmail.com schrieb:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
satisfying, and I am hoping someone can explain the following to me:
4 / 5.0
0.80004
4 / 5.0 is 0.8. No more, no less. So what's up with that 4 at the end.
It bothers me.
Welcome to IEEE
On May 21, 2:05 pm, seanm...@gmail.com wrote:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
satisfying, and I am hoping someone can explain the following to me:
4 / 5.0
0.80004
4 / 5.0 is 0.8. No more, no less.
That would depend on how you define the numbers and
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 21, 2:05 pm, seanm...@gmail.com wrote:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
satisfying, and I am hoping someone can explain the following to me:
4 / 5.0
0.80004
4 / 5.0
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 21, 2:05 pm, seanm...@gmail.com wrote:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
satisfying, and I am hoping someone can explain the following to me:
4 / 5.0
0.80004
4 / 5.0
seanm...@gmail.com wrote:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
satisfying, and I am hoping someone can explain the following to me:
4 / 5.0
0.80004
4 / 5.0 is 0.8. No more, no less. So what's up with that 4 at the end.
It bothers me.
On 2009-05-21, Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote:
seanm...@gmail.com schrieb:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
satisfying, and I am hoping someone can explain the following to me:
4 / 5.0
0.80004
4 / 5.0 is 0.8. No more, no less. So what's up
On May 21, 3:45 pm, norseman norse...@hughes.net wrote:
Beyond that - just fix the money at 2, gas pumps at 3 and the
sine/cosine at 8 and let it ride. :)
Or just use print.
print 4.0/5.0
0.8
Since interactive prompt is usually used by programmers who are
inspecting values it makes a little
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2009-05-21, Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote:
seanm...@gmail.com schrieb:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
satisfying, and I am hoping someone can explain the following to me:
4 / 5.0
0.80004
4 / 5.0 is 0.8. No more, no
MRAB wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2009-05-21, Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote:
seanm...@gmail.com schrieb:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
satisfying, and I am hoping someone can explain the following to me:
4 / 5.0
0.80004
4 / 5.0 is 0.8.
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Gary Herron gher...@islandtraining.com wrote:
MRAB wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2009-05-21, Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote:
seanm...@gmail.com schrieb:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
satisfying, and I am hoping
Gary Herron gher...@islandtraining.com wrote:
MRAB wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2009-05-21, Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote:
seanm...@gmail.com schrieb:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
satisfying, and I am hoping someone can explain the following to
R. David Murray wrote:
Gary Herron gher...@islandtraining.com wrote:
MRAB wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2009-05-21, Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote:
seanm...@gmail.com schrieb:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
On May 21, 5:45 pm, norseman norse...@hughes.net wrote:
seanm...@gmail.com wrote:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
satisfying, and I am hoping someone can explain the following to me:
4 / 5.0
0.80004
4 / 5.0 is 0.8. No more, no less. So what's up
On May 21, 5:36 pm, Chris Rebert c...@rebertia.com wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Carl Banks pavlovevide...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 21, 2:05 pm, seanm...@gmail.com wrote:
The explaination in my introductory Python book is not very
satisfying, and I am hoping someone can explain the
Rob Clewley wrote:
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Gary Herron gher...@islandtraining.com wrote:
MRAB wrote:
Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2009-05-21, Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de wrote:
seanm...@gmail.com schrieb:
The explaination in my introductory
43 matches
Mail list logo
