Just out of curiosity how many bits does the IEEE standard require for
On Oct 17, 2016 3:51 PM, "Leo Broukhis" <l...@mailcom.com> wrote:
> Dijkstra is above reproach; I try to compare the averages.
> Having eps^2 = eps is cute, but, given that the idea didn't spread to
> other pre-IEEE f.p. implementations nor to IEEE (it is possible to
> iteratively square a number x with 0 < abs(x) < 1 down to 0, given enough
> iterations, denormals or not), it appears that the Electrologica floating
> point turned out to be impractical.
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Paul Koning <paulkon...@comcast.net>
>> > On Oct 17, 2016, at 2:26 PM, Leo Broukhis <l...@mailcom.com> wrote:
>> > > I think that the same answer applies to your narrower question,
>> though I didn't see it mentioned specifically in the documents I've read.
>> > That's somewhat comforting; I'd hate to think that the BESM-6
>> programmers were substantially sloppier than their Western colleagues. :)
>> As you probably know, Dijkstra was a whole lot more disciplined than the
>> vast majority of his colleagues.
>> > > For example, the treatment of underflow and very small numbers in
>> Electrologica was novel at the time; Knuth specifically refers to it in a
>> > > footnote of Volume 2. The EL-X8 would never turn a non-zero result
>> into zero, for example.
>> > For most but not all values of "never", I presume. What was the result
>> of squaring the number with the least representable absolute value?
>> The least representable positive value. See the paper by F. E. J.
>> Kruseman Aretz that I mentioned.
>> > > I think IEEE ended up doing the same thing, but that was almost 20
>> years later.
>> > Are you're thinking about denormals?
>> I think so, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't really know
>> floating point.
> Simh mailing list
Simh mailing list