Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch > #3118 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-08-23 10:48 -0700 |
| Last post | 2011-08-29 09:18 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 246 — 39 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch
Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-23 10:48 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-23 16:24 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-24 07:20 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-23 23:22 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-24 14:38 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-25 17:42 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 09:45 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 18:03 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-26 20:31 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-26 20:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 02:35 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-27 15:27 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 13:41 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-27 17:34 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 17:40 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-27 17:50 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-28 23:49 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-27 22:40 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-28 19:33 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-29 13:56 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-29 09:07 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-29 17:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-29 11:56 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-08-29 16:12 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-29 20:46 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <kon@iki.fi> - 2011-08-30 07:48 +0300
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-30 08:22 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-31 11:34 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-29 22:22 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Andrew Reilly <areilly---@bigpond.net.au> - 2011-08-30 11:17 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-30 12:35 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-30 07:02 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-30 15:18 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-30 15:12 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-08-31 08:30 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 09:54 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 10:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-01 18:01 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 12:25 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! sidd <sidd@situ.com> - 2011-09-01 20:02 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2011-09-02 10:27 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 11:33 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 08:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 08:12 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 15:50 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 08:49 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 17:00 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 15:55 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-03 18:06 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 07:58 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 15:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-02 07:42 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Andreas Eder <andreas_eder@gmx.net> - 2011-09-02 17:51 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! sidd <sidd@situ.com> - 2011-08-31 12:11 -0400
Complex Number Representation nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-02 21:22 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-30 07:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-31 10:39 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-31 08:00 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-31 18:38 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-08-31 13:18 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-08-31 19:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-30 00:19 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Brett Davis <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-31 23:46 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-31 09:56 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-01 08:23 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-31 14:02 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 04:02 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-01 19:42 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-31 23:20 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "James Van Buskirk" <not_valid@comcast.net> - 2011-09-12 15:53 -0600
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-12 22:31 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-12 22:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-12 21:00 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-13 10:10 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-13 04:58 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-01 07:25 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> - 2011-09-01 10:37 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-01 18:25 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-09-01 19:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 12:30 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-01 12:38 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-01 17:13 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-01 14:48 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-01 22:49 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-01 18:08 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2011-09-02 00:26 -0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Andy \"Krazy\" Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2011-09-02 05:06 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-02 10:46 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-09-02 12:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-02 13:54 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-03 14:57 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-03 15:33 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-03 13:42 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 08:46 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-04 08:05 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 17:44 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-04 08:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 18:52 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-04 08:55 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 16:46 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-04 13:21 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 14:03 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 14:15 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 18:52 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 15:00 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 21:02 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 19:22 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-05 07:09 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 04:48 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-04 20:18 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-04 03:53 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-04 13:21 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 03:57 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-04 08:47 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 04:03 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 14:30 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 04:49 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-04 15:53 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-05 09:55 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2011-10-19 19:17 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-04 19:54 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 20:56 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 19:16 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-04 16:26 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-05 13:45 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bakul Shah <usenet@bitblocks.com> - 2011-09-05 12:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-05 20:51 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-06 10:57 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-06 19:43 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-06 10:55 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-09-06 11:36 +0100
OT English Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! wclodius@lost-alamos.pet (William Clodius) - 2011-09-05 13:33 -0600
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-05 23:12 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2011-09-07 09:44 -0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-03 13:41 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-09-03 21:36 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-03 20:18 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-04 08:31 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 13:11 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-09-05 17:14 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 09:07 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-07 12:15 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-07 08:37 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-07 13:50 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-07 09:21 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2011-09-08 08:42 +0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:10 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-08 19:09 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-05 22:50 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-06 13:45 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-06 09:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-07 14:13 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-07 09:42 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2011-09-08 09:05 +0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:10 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 04:49 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:09 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-09 03:17 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-09-10 23:07 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-11 09:06 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-11 10:07 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-11 06:48 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-11 08:26 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-11 13:00 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-11 07:36 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Piotr Wyderski <peter.pan@neverland.mil> - 2011-10-19 19:15 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-10-19 14:45 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2011-10-19 17:13 -0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-10-20 13:38 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-27 09:01 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-02 20:41 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-03 06:58 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-03 07:19 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bakul Shah <usenet@bitblocks.com> - 2011-09-02 21:54 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-09-03 09:05 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-03 16:42 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-09-03 21:00 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bakul Shah <usenet@bitblocks.com> - 2011-09-03 11:01 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-03 19:18 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bakul Shah <usenet@bitblocks.com> - 2011-09-03 13:05 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 08:09 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-09-03 21:34 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2011-09-04 22:15 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! nmm1@cam.ac.uk - 2011-09-04 21:07 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-02 20:21 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Tim Shoppa <shoppa@trailing-edge.com> - 2011-09-06 09:32 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 09:09 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-07 07:17 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-07 16:00 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-09-07 16:40 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-07 09:57 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-07 09:39 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-07 20:47 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:09 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Stephen Fuld <SFuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2011-09-08 09:13 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-08 18:59 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-09 15:21 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-09 12:48 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-10 06:27 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-09 23:04 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2011-09-08 08:57 +0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2011-09-08 14:10 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2011-09-08 07:50 -0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-08 12:07 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2011-09-08 12:10 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-08 17:38 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-09 03:43 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-08 12:21 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> - 2011-09-01 17:09 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-02 08:59 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 09:07 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-07 20:03 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 16:55 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-09 03:52 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-01 15:57 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-10-02 05:51 +1100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-10-07 11:31 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-07 14:08 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-07 14:18 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2011-09-07 14:05 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Morten Reistad <first@last.name> - 2011-09-07 20:54 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 05:27 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! timcaffrey@aol.com (Tim McCaffrey) - 2011-09-16 18:48 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! sidd <sidd@situ.com> - 2011-09-07 18:53 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 04:37 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-08 10:19 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk - 2011-09-08 05:14 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2011-09-11 12:58 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2011-09-12 10:01 +0100
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-12 19:35 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-12 09:25 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-09-12 13:27 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-09-12 10:41 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-09-12 11:34 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-13 05:40 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-09-12 15:53 -0400
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-12 13:08 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 04:14 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-09-07 11:31 -0700
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 05:35 +1000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2011-09-08 08:40 +0800
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-09-07 20:25 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-09-08 16:58 +0000
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-08 12:31 -0500
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> - 2011-08-30 13:46 +0200
Re: Solving the Floating-Point Goldilocks Problem! Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2011-08-29 09:18 -0700
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
| From | Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 08:57 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <tgglj8x5ik.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au> |
| In reply to | #3524 |
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: >Since Britain, the last bastion of a non-decimal currency, has long >since decimalised, there would seem to be no reason to add such >features to current languages. >It's not as if, for example, anyone now keeps accounts in the currency >of the Roman Republic... >1 Quadrans = 3 Unciae >1 Triens = 4 Unciae >1 Quincunx = 5 Unciae >1 Semis = 2 Quadriae = 6 Unciae >1 As = 2 Semiae = 3 Trientes = 4 Quadriae = 12 Unciae >1 Dupondius = 2 Asses = 4 Semiae = 6 Trientes = 8 Quadriae = 24 Unciae >1 Sestertius = 5 Semiae = 10 Quadriae = 6 Quincunctiae = 30 Unciae >1 Denarius = 4 Sestertiae = 5 Dupondiae Base-120 arithmetic? Keeping accurate track of rational fractions is still important. Say you have a widget production line where one machine produces exactly 100 knoblits a second. A conveyor feeds 1 in 3 to each of 3 machines which then insert the knoblits into wangats. (Knoblit insertion cannot be done any quicker using known technology.) The question arises: how does one define the production flow on a computer (actually in an application program) if it can't do fractions? One would lose 1% of production in the planning. Or end up producing 99.99999999999999999 knoblits a second in total. The result is as insane as trying to process text as numbers, which all-too-many people do unwittingly on their computers. e.g. <http://www.austbd.com.au/index.php/bosch-battery-s4-229.html> Look at the "Short Code". The manufacturer's item code is 574.035 Laugh? Cry? I don't know which. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | For every complex problem there is an X against HTML mail | answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. / \ and postings | --HL Mencken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 14:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0004AC6E950269B0@aca29b66.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #3553 |
Bernd Felsche wrote: > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > >>Since Britain, the last bastion of a non-decimal currency, has long >>since decimalised, there would seem to be no reason to add such >>features to current languages. > >>It's not as if, for example, anyone now keeps accounts in the currency >>of the Roman Republic... > >>1 Quadrans = 3 Unciae >>1 Triens = 4 Unciae >>1 Quincunx = 5 Unciae >>1 Semis = 2 Quadriae = 6 Unciae >>1 As = 2 Semiae = 3 Trientes = 4 Quadriae = 12 Unciae >>1 Dupondius = 2 Asses = 4 Semiae = 6 Trientes = 8 Quadriae = 24 Unciae >>1 Sestertius = 5 Semiae = 10 Quadriae = 6 Quincunctiae = 30 Unciae >>1 Denarius = 4 Sestertiae = 5 Dupondiae > > Base-120 arithmetic? > > Keeping accurate track of rational fractions is still important. > Say you have a widget production line where one machine produces > exactly 100 knoblits a second. A conveyor feeds 1 in 3 to each of 3 > machines which then insert the knoblits into wangats. (Knoblit > insertion cannot be done any quicker using known technology.) > > The question arises: how does one define the production flow on a > computer (actually in an application program) if it can't do fractions? > One would lose 1% of production in the planning. Or end up producing > 99.99999999999999999 knoblits a second in total. > > The result is as insane as trying to process text as numbers, which > all-too-many people do unwittingly on their computers. e.g. > <http://www.austbd.com.au/index.php/bosch-battery-s4-229.html> > > Look at the "Short Code". The manufacturer's item code is 574.035 > > Laugh? Cry? I don't know which. Worry a lot. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 07:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1900.303T2315T4705560@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
| In reply to | #3553 |
In article <tgglj8x5ik.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au>, berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au (Bernd Felsche) writes: > The result is as insane as trying to process text as numbers, which > all-too-many people do unwittingly on their computers. e.g. > <http://www.austbd.com.au/index.php/bosch-battery-s4-229.html> > > Look at the "Short Code". The manufacturer's item code is 574.035 > > Laugh? Cry? I don't know which. Omigod. Laugh or cry, this definitely calls for another beer. Very early in my career I learned that one of the Seven Deadly Sins of Design (well, there might be more) was to treat a field as numeric when you had no business doing so. My first awakening to the potential horrors of such misuse was when someone came up with a part number like 574.035a - but there are even worse things in store for those fools who rush in where prudent designers fear to tread. Apocryphal story: someone defined the zip code field in a customer file as a 5-digit numeric field. This was a problem for customers for whom they had no zip code. The "solution" was to set the field to 99999 in such cases. Come the first mailout, a large number of statements went to Ketchikan, Alaska. (What makes this story apocryphal is that although Ketchikan has several zip codes 999xx, 99999 itself is invalid. This doesn't, IMHO, invalidate what I consider to be another fundamental rule of system design: magic values are Evil. What if 99999 someday does get assigned?) Unfortunately, spreadsheets (which know better than you and have no hesitation enforcing said judgment, however impassioned your plea) make such situations almost inevitable these days. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 12:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-90D0A9.12073708092011@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #3575 |
In article <1900.303T2315T4705560@kltpzyxm.invalid>, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > (What makes this story apocryphal is that although Ketchikan has > several zip codes 999xx, 99999 itself is invalid. This doesn't, > IMHO, invalidate what I consider to be another fundamental rule > of system design: magic values are Evil. What if 99999 someday > does get assigned?) Magic numbers *are* evil. I had a habit as a Fortran programmer of having the STOP statement labeled 99999 which terminated the run of the batch job in one location, because 9 in column 1 was EOB. -- Ignorance is no protection against reality. -- Paul J Gans
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 12:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <proto-7D8BF4.12100708092011@news.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #3575 |
In article <1900.303T2315T4705560@kltpzyxm.invalid>, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > (What makes this story apocryphal is that although Ketchikan has > several zip codes 999xx, 99999 itself is invalid. This doesn't, > IMHO, invalidate what I consider to be another fundamental rule > of system design: magic values are Evil. What if 99999 someday > does get assigned?) "Magic numbers are just a special case of in band signaling. "Captain Crunch" et. al. made a hobby of spoofing the phone system to get free calls, or was it just the joy of hacking. Of course, the uncreative majority just used the hacks to get free calls.Anyway, we got the Woz out of it so probably worth it. -- Ignorance is no protection against reality. -- Paul J Gans
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 17:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20110908173847.b4b408f5.steveo@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #3575 |
On 08 Sep 11 07:50:46 -0800 "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: > (What makes this story apocryphal is that although Ketchikan has > several zip codes 999xx, 99999 itself is invalid. This doesn't, > IMHO, invalidate what I consider to be another fundamental rule > of system design: magic values are Evil. What if 99999 someday > does get assigned?) One of the test dates for Y2K work was 9/9/99 which had apparently been used for "invalid date" in some systems. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-09 03:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj6j244.20om.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net> |
| In reply to | #3580 |
On 2011-09-08, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > One of the test dates for Y2K work was 9/9/99 which had > apparently been used for "invalid date" in some systems. I am told there existed a dialysis machine which used the entry of that obviously-invalid date as the signal to do a self-cleaning cycle. -s -- Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 12:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bsth6710v40a4pn4cudlbh77d4qrf6o0m3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #3575 |
On 08 Sep 11 07:50:46 -0800, "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote: >In article <tgglj8x5ik.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au>, >berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au (Bernd Felsche) writes: > >> The result is as insane as trying to process text as numbers, which >> all-too-many people do unwittingly on their computers. e.g. >> <http://www.austbd.com.au/index.php/bosch-battery-s4-229.html> >> >> Look at the "Short Code". The manufacturer's item code is 574.035 >> >> Laugh? Cry? I don't know which. > >Omigod. Laugh or cry, this definitely calls for another beer. > >Very early in my career I learned that one of the Seven Deadly Sins >of Design (well, there might be more) was to treat a field as numeric >when you had no business doing so. My first awakening to the potential >horrors of such misuse was when someone came up with a part number like >574.035a - but there are even worse things in store for those fools who >rush in where prudent designers fear to tread. > >Apocryphal story: someone defined the zip code field in a customer >file as a 5-digit numeric field. This was a problem for customers >for whom they had no zip code. The "solution" was to set the field >to 99999 in such cases. Come the first mailout, a large number of >statements went to Ketchikan, Alaska. > >(What makes this story apocryphal is that although Ketchikan has >several zip codes 999xx, 99999 itself is invalid. This doesn't, >IMHO, invalidate what I consider to be another fundamental rule >of system design: magic values are Evil. What if 99999 someday >does get assigned?) A sad historical note: That sort of thing snuck(?) in as an expedience in the 80s, when the USPS introduced the ZIP+4 (extended postal-code) system. Many folks were storing ZIP codes in a five character field (although not the ones with Canadian customers), and it was noticed that you could store a *packed* ZIP+4 (nine digits, after all) code in the same five bytes. More than a few places ended up putting a union and numeric tests on those fields to see what was there. IOW, crap like: ... 05 ZIP PIC 9(5) USAGE DISPLAY. 05 ZIP-PLUS-4 REDEFINES ZIP PIC 9(9) USAGE COMP-3. ... IF ZIP IS NUMERIC... ELSE IF ZIP-PLUS-4 IS NUMERIC... Of course that *did* have the advantage that you could move SPACES (or sometime LOW-VALUES or HIGH-VALUES) to the field, which would not be NUMERIC in either format, so you could accurately represent the invalid case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Flass <Peter_Flass@Yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-01 17:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j3os9u$d9m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #3337 |
On 9/1/2011 1:25 PM, nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote: > In article<1c679456-72d6-4231-9a6d-20f0c9060799@bl1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > Tim Shoppa<shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote: >> On Sep 1, 7:25=A0am, Peter Flass<Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> A lot of the Xerox stuff used "rational numbers", stored as an integer >>> numerator and an integer denominator. >> >> Not sure what Xerox stuff this is. SDS/XDS, Alto, Star, or something I >> never heard of :-). I know there was some academic overlap between >> Interlisp/Smalltalk and the Star communities. >> >> I wonder if this was done for bignum or mathematica style stuff, or if >> it was a different tack than fixed-point Cobol style math to approach >> financial accounting. > > Look up "fixed slash" arithmetic - I don't know what Xerox did, but I > mention that in my computer arithmetic course. I have just added an > equally brief reference to quaternions :-) > > http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/courses/Arithmetic/index.html > >> I know folks from across the pond could teach me a lot about how to do >> math with twelfths and twentieths for pennies/shillings/pounds and I >> can see this driving some interesting British computer >> representations... > > Nah. We weren't insane, and represented such numbers as integers, > with appropriate conversion functions! When I were a lad, we were > required to do mental arithmetic involving currency, and I go back > to the days of farthings. That skill has disappeared, which has > had the disadvantage that most people no longer have the 'feel' for > numbers that used to be normal. > Interpress, at least. XDS computers had a fairly standard float format (IIRC, don't have the details handy). Maybe the Alto, did that have FP at all? Kids these days can't even do arithmetic in their heads in dollars and cents! They can't make change without a cash register or calculator telling them how much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-02 08:59 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9cah3eFl5lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3350 |
Peter Flass wrote > nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote >> Tim Shoppa<shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote >>> Peter Flass<Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote >>>> A lot of the Xerox stuff used "rational numbers", stored as an integer numerator and an integer denominator. >>> Not sure what Xerox stuff this is. SDS/XDS, Alto, Star, or >>> something I never heard of :-). I know there was some academic >>> overlap between Interlisp/Smalltalk and the Star communities. >>> I wonder if this was done for bignum or mathematica style stuff, or if it was a different tack than fixed-point >>> Cobol style math to >>> approach financial accounting. >> Look up "fixed slash" arithmetic - I don't know what Xerox did, but I >> mention that in my computer arithmetic course. I have just added an >> equally brief reference to quaternions :-) >> http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/courses/Arithmetic/index.html >>> I know folks from across the pond could teach me a lot about how to do math with twelfths and twentieths for >>> pennies/shillings/pounds and I can see this driving some interesting British computer representations... >> Nah. We weren't insane, and represented such numbers as integers, >> with appropriate conversion functions! When I were a lad, we were >> required to do mental arithmetic involving currency, and I go back >> to the days of farthings. That skill has disappeared, which has >> had the disadvantage that most people no longer have the 'feel' for >> numbers that used to be normal. > Interpress, at least. XDS computers had a fairly standard float > format (IIRC, don't have the details handy). Maybe the Alto, did > that have FP at all? > Kids these days can't even do arithmetic in their heads in dollars and > cents! They can't make change without a cash register or calculator > telling them how much. Yes they can. The ones I buy my tomatoes at the market from can.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 09:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9coqi9F9ppU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3356 |
In article <9cah3eFl5lU1@mid.individual.net>,
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass wrote
> > nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote
> >> Tim Shoppa<shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote
> >>> Peter Flass<Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >>>> A lot of the Xerox stuff used "rational numbers", stored as an integer numerator and an integer denominator.
>
> >>> Not sure what Xerox stuff this is. SDS/XDS, Alto, Star, or
> >>> something I never heard of :-). I know there was some academic
> >>> overlap between Interlisp/Smalltalk and the Star communities.
>
> >>> I wonder if this was done for bignum or mathematica style stuff, or if it was a different tack than fixed-point
> >>> Cobol style math to
> >>> approach financial accounting.
>
> >> Look up "fixed slash" arithmetic - I don't know what Xerox did, but I
> >> mention that in my computer arithmetic course. I have just added an
> >> equally brief reference to quaternions :-)
>
> >> http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/courses/Arithmetic/index.html
>
> >>> I know folks from across the pond could teach me a lot about how
> >>> to do math with twelfths and twentieths for
> >>> pennies/shillings/pounds and I can see this driving some
> >>> interesting British computer representations...
>
> >> Nah. We weren't insane, and represented such numbers as integers,
> >> with appropriate conversion functions! When I were a lad, we were
> >> required to do mental arithmetic involving currency, and I go back
> >> to the days of farthings. That skill has disappeared, which has
> >> had the disadvantage that most people no longer have the 'feel' for
> >> numbers that used to be normal.
>
> > Interpress, at least. XDS computers had a fairly standard float
> > format (IIRC, don't have the details handy). Maybe the Alto, did
> > that have FP at all?
>
> > Kids these days can't even do arithmetic in their heads in dollars and
> > cents! They can't make change without a cash register or calculator
> > telling them how much.
>
> Yes they can. The ones I buy my tomatoes at the market from can.
So apparently *some* of them can. I guess you don't observe ones
that can't? I do, sort of [*] .... Could this be something that's
different in different countries?
[*] My favorite example is what happens when, asked to pay in a
retail establishment, I count out an amount of cash that will result
in my getting back a few largish bills rather than small bills and
change (e.g., $20.79 for a bill of $10.79). Usually the checkout
clerk just enters the amount in the cash register, but every once
in a while he or she will look at me in puzzlement and say "this is
too much". Sometimes my explanation ("but this way you give me back
a $10 bill") suffices. Sometimes there's still this look of puzzlement,
but usually the clerk can be encouraged to just enter the amount, etc.
Then again, it occurs to me that some of the puzzled looks have come
from people old enough to have learned to do arithmetic without
mechanical/electronic assistance. <shrug>
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 20:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9cotrkFb1kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3509 |
blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Peter Flass wrote
>>> nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote
>>>> Tim Shoppa<shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote
>>>>> Peter Flass<Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>> A lot of the Xerox stuff used "rational numbers", stored
>>>>>> as an integer numerator and an integer denominator.
>>>>> Not sure what Xerox stuff this is. SDS/XDS, Alto, Star, or
>>>>> something I never heard of :-). I know there was some academic
>>>>> overlap between Interlisp/Smalltalk and the Star communities.
>>>>> I wonder if this was done for bignum or mathematica style stuff,
>>>>> or if it was a different tack than fixed-point Cobol style math to
>>>>> approach financial accounting.
>>>> Look up "fixed slash" arithmetic - I don't know what Xerox did,
>>>> but I mention that in my computer arithmetic course. I have just
>>>> added an equally brief reference to quaternions :-)
>>>> http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/courses/Arithmetic/index.html
>>>>> I know folks from across the pond could teach me a lot
>>>>> about how to do math with twelfths and twentieths for
>>>>> pennies/shillings/pounds and I can see this driving some
>>>>> interesting British computer representations...
>>>> Nah. We weren't insane, and represented such numbers as integers,
>>>> with appropriate conversion functions! When I were a lad, we were
>>>> required to do mental arithmetic involving currency, and I go back
>>>> to the days of farthings. That skill has disappeared, which has
>>>> had the disadvantage that most people no longer have the 'feel' for
>>>> numbers that used to be normal.
>>> Interpress, at least. XDS computers had a fairly standard float
>>> format (IIRC, don't have the details handy). Maybe the Alto, did
>>> that have FP at all?
>>> Kids these days can't even do arithmetic in their heads in dollars
>>> and cents! They can't make change without a cash register or
>>> calculator telling them how much.
>> Yes they can. The ones I buy my tomatoes at the market from can.
> So apparently *some* of them can. I guess you don't observe ones that can't?
I didnt say that. I was JUST commenting on your claim that none of them can.
> I do, sort of [*] ....
So do I.
> Could this be something that's different in different countries?
Nope.
> [*] My favorite example is what happens when, asked to pay in a
> retail establishment, I count out an amount of cash that will result
> in my getting back a few largish bills rather than small bills and
> change (e.g., $20.79 for a bill of $10.79). Usually the checkout
> clerk just enters the amount in the cash register,
Cant say I have ever had one do that.
> but every once in a while he or she will look at
> me in puzzlement and say "this is too much".
Or that.
> Sometimes my explanation ("but this way you give me back a $10 bill") suffices.
Or that.
> Sometimes there's still this look of puzzlement, but usually
> the clerk can be encouraged to just enter the amount, etc.
Or that.
> Then again, it occurs to me that some of the puzzled looks
> have come from people old enough to have learned to do
> arithmetic without mechanical/electronic assistance. <shrug>
Presumably some of them are just reacting to your rabid
blood shot eys and flecks of foam about the lips etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-08 16:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9csaclFg18U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3514 |
In article <9cotrkFb1kU1@mid.individual.net>,
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Peter Flass wrote
> >>> nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote
> >>>> Tim Shoppa<shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote
> >>>>> Peter Flass<Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >>>>>> A lot of the Xerox stuff used "rational numbers", stored
> >>>>>> as an integer numerator and an integer denominator.
>
> >>>>> Not sure what Xerox stuff this is. SDS/XDS, Alto, Star, or
> >>>>> something I never heard of :-). I know there was some academic
> >>>>> overlap between Interlisp/Smalltalk and the Star communities.
>
> >>>>> I wonder if this was done for bignum or mathematica style stuff,
> >>>>> or if it was a different tack than fixed-point Cobol style math to
> >>>>> approach financial accounting.
>
> >>>> Look up "fixed slash" arithmetic - I don't know what Xerox did,
> >>>> but I mention that in my computer arithmetic course. I have just
> >>>> added an equally brief reference to quaternions :-)
>
> >>>> http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/courses/Arithmetic/index.html
>
> >>>>> I know folks from across the pond could teach me a lot
> >>>>> about how to do math with twelfths and twentieths for
> >>>>> pennies/shillings/pounds and I can see this driving some
> >>>>> interesting British computer representations...
>
> >>>> Nah. We weren't insane, and represented such numbers as integers,
> >>>> with appropriate conversion functions! When I were a lad, we were
> >>>> required to do mental arithmetic involving currency, and I go back
> >>>> to the days of farthings. That skill has disappeared, which has
> >>>> had the disadvantage that most people no longer have the 'feel' for
> >>>> numbers that used to be normal.
>
> >>> Interpress, at least. XDS computers had a fairly standard float
> >>> format (IIRC, don't have the details handy). Maybe the Alto, did
> >>> that have FP at all?
>
> >>> Kids these days can't even do arithmetic in their heads in dollars
> >>> and cents! They can't make change without a cash register or
> >>> calculator telling them how much.
>
> >> Yes they can. The ones I buy my tomatoes at the market from can.
>
> > So apparently *some* of them can. I guess you don't observe ones
> > that can't?
>
> I didnt say that. I was JUST commenting on your claim that none of
> them can.
Not my claim. Check the attribution lines.
> > I do, sort of [*] ....
>
> So do I.
>
> > Could this be something that's different in different countries?
>
> Nope.
>
> > [*] My favorite example is what happens when, asked to pay in a
> > retail establishment, I count out an amount of cash that will result
> > in my getting back a few largish bills rather than small bills and
> > change (e.g., $20.79 for a bill of $10.79). Usually the checkout
> > clerk just enters the amount in the cash register,
>
> Cant say I have ever had one do that.
>
> > but every once in a while he or she will look at
> > me in puzzlement and say "this is too much".
>
> Or that.
>
> > Sometimes my explanation ("but this way you give me back a $10
> > bill") suffices.
>
> Or that.
>
> > Sometimes there's still this look of puzzlement, but usually
> > the clerk can be encouraged to just enter the amount, etc.
>
> Or that.
Do you ever pay with cash, and supply an amount that's intended
to reduce the number of bills/coins you receive as change?
(Question intended to elicit information, not as some sort of
challenge.)
> > Then again, it occurs to me that some of the puzzled looks
> > have come from people old enough to have learned to do
> > arithmetic without mechanical/electronic assistance. <shrug>
>
> Presumably some of them are just reacting to your rabid
> blood shot eys and flecks of foam about the lips etc.
>
Charming description, but quite at odds with reality.
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-09 03:52 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <9csdmvFf06U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3581 |
blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Peter Flass wrote
>>>>> nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote
>>>>>> Tim Shoppa<shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Peter Flass<Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> A lot of the Xerox stuff used "rational numbers", stored
>>>>>>>> as an integer numerator and an integer denominator.
>>>>>>> Not sure what Xerox stuff this is. SDS/XDS, Alto, Star, or
>>>>>>> something I never heard of :-). I know there was some academic
>>>>>>> overlap between Interlisp/Smalltalk and the Star communities.
>>>>>>> I wonder if this was done for bignum or mathematica style stuff,
>>>>>>> or if it was a different tack than fixed-point Cobol style math
>>>>>>> to approach financial accounting.
>>>>>> Look up "fixed slash" arithmetic - I don't know what Xerox did,
>>>>>> but I mention that in my computer arithmetic course. I have just
>>>>>> added an equally brief reference to quaternions :-)
>>>>>> http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/courses/Arithmetic/index.html
>>>>>>> I know folks from across the pond could teach me a lot
>>>>>>> about how to do math with twelfths and twentieths for
>>>>>>> pennies/shillings/pounds and I can see this driving some
>>>>>>> interesting British computer representations...
>>>>>> Nah. We weren't insane, and represented such numbers as
>>>>>> integers, with appropriate conversion functions! When I were
>>>>>> a lad, we were required to do mental arithmetic involving
>>>>>> currency, and I go back to the days of farthings. That skill
>>>>>> has disappeared, which has had the disadvantage that most people
>>>>>> no longer have the 'feel' for numbers that used to be normal.
>>>>> Interpress, at least. XDS computers had a fairly standard float
>>>>> format (IIRC, don't have the details handy). Maybe the Alto, did
>>>>> that have FP at all?
>>>>> Kids these days can't even do arithmetic in their heads in dollars
>>>>> and cents! They can't make change without a cash register or
>>>>> calculator telling them how much.
>>>> Yes they can. The ones I buy my tomatoes at the market from can.
>>> So apparently *some* of them can. I guess you don't observe ones that can't?
>> I didnt say that. I was JUST commenting on your claim that none of them can.
> Not my claim. Check the attribution lines.
I didnt say that. I was JUST commenting on the claim that none of them can.
>>> I do, sort of [*] ....
>> So do I.
>>> Could this be something that's different in different countries?
>> Nope.
>>> [*] My favorite example is what happens when, asked to pay in a
>>> retail establishment, I count out an amount of cash that will result
>>> in my getting back a few largish bills rather than small bills and
>>> change (e.g., $20.79 for a bill of $10.79). Usually the checkout
>>> clerk just enters the amount in the cash register,
>> Cant say I have ever had one do that.
>>> but every once in a while he or she will look at
>>> me in puzzlement and say "this is too much".
>> Or that.
>>> Sometimes my explanation ("but this way you give me back a $10 bill") suffices.
>> Or that.
>>> Sometimes there's still this look of puzzlement, but usually
>>> the clerk can be encouraged to just enter the amount, etc.
>> Or that.
> Do you ever pay with cash, and supply an amount that's intended
> to reduce the number of bills/coins you receive as change?
Yes, very frequently, because I otherwise end up with a lot of coins
in my fob pocket because I dont often bother to pay with coins
unless the amount to be paid can be done with only a couple of coins.
> (Question intended to elicit information, not as some sort of challenge.)
>>> Then again, it occurs to me that some of the puzzled looks
>>> have come from people old enough to have learned to do
>>> arithmetic without mechanical/electronic assistance. <shrug>
>> Presumably some of them are just reacting to your rabid
>> blood shot eys and flecks of foam about the lips etc.
> Charming description, but quite at odds with reality.
That was a joke, Joyce.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-01 15:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9eorieFhhsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3587 |
In article <9csdmvFf06U1@mid.individual.net>,
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >> blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> Peter Flass wrote
> >>>>> nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote
> >>>>>> Tim Shoppa<shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote
> >>>>>>> Peter Flass<Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >>>>>>>> A lot of the Xerox stuff used "rational numbers", stored
> >>>>>>>> as an integer numerator and an integer denominator.
>
> >>>>>>> Not sure what Xerox stuff this is. SDS/XDS, Alto, Star, or
> >>>>>>> something I never heard of :-). I know there was some academic
> >>>>>>> overlap between Interlisp/Smalltalk and the Star communities.
>
> >>>>>>> I wonder if this was done for bignum or mathematica style stuff,
> >>>>>>> or if it was a different tack than fixed-point Cobol style math
> >>>>>>> to approach financial accounting.
>
> >>>>>> Look up "fixed slash" arithmetic - I don't know what Xerox did,
> >>>>>> but I mention that in my computer arithmetic course. I have just
> >>>>>> added an equally brief reference to quaternions :-)
>
> >>>>>> http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/courses/Arithmetic/index.html
>
> >>>>>>> I know folks from across the pond could teach me a lot
> >>>>>>> about how to do math with twelfths and twentieths for
> >>>>>>> pennies/shillings/pounds and I can see this driving some
> >>>>>>> interesting British computer representations...
>
> >>>>>> Nah. We weren't insane, and represented such numbers as
> >>>>>> integers, with appropriate conversion functions! When I were
> >>>>>> a lad, we were required to do mental arithmetic involving
> >>>>>> currency, and I go back to the days of farthings. That skill
> >>>>>> has disappeared, which has had the disadvantage that most people
> >>>>>> no longer have the 'feel' for numbers that used to be normal.
>
> >>>>> Interpress, at least. XDS computers had a fairly standard float
> >>>>> format (IIRC, don't have the details handy). Maybe the Alto, did
> >>>>> that have FP at all?
>
> >>>>> Kids these days can't even do arithmetic in their heads in dollars
> >>>>> and cents! They can't make change without a cash register or
> >>>>> calculator telling them how much.
>
> >>>> Yes they can. The ones I buy my tomatoes at the market from can.
>
> >>> So apparently *some* of them can. I guess you don't observe ones that can't?
>
> >> I didnt say that. I was JUST commenting on your claim that none of them can.
>
> > Not my claim. Check the attribution lines.
>
> I didnt say that. I was JUST commenting on the claim that none of them can.
What does "I was JUST commenting on your claim" mean, in your usage,
if it doesn't mean that you were commenting on something *I* --
not someone else in the discussion -- said?
(Yeah, yeah, very old post, probably ought to just let this one go,
but it's *such* a "say what?!" .... )
> >>> I do, sort of [*] ....
>
> >> So do I.
>
> >>> Could this be something that's different in different countries?
>
> >> Nope.
>
> >>> [*] My favorite example is what happens when, asked to pay in a
> >>> retail establishment, I count out an amount of cash that will result
> >>> in my getting back a few largish bills rather than small bills and
> >>> change (e.g., $20.79 for a bill of $10.79). Usually the checkout
> >>> clerk just enters the amount in the cash register,
>
> >> Cant say I have ever had one do that.
>
> >>> but every once in a while he or she will look at
> >>> me in puzzlement and say "this is too much".
>
> >> Or that.
>
> >>> Sometimes my explanation ("but this way you give me back a $10 bill") suffices.
>
> >> Or that.
>
> >>> Sometimes there's still this look of puzzlement, but usually
> >>> the clerk can be encouraged to just enter the amount, etc.
>
> >> Or that.
>
> > Do you ever pay with cash, and supply an amount that's intended
> > to reduce the number of bills/coins you receive as change?
>
> Yes, very frequently, because I otherwise end up with a lot of coins
> in my fob pocket because I dont often bother to pay with coins
> unless the amount to be paid can be done with only a couple of coins.
Huh. Well, maybe you get a better, or at least different, class
of checkout clerks where you live.
> > (Question intended to elicit information, not as some sort of challenge.)
>
> >>> Then again, it occurs to me that some of the puzzled looks
> >>> have come from people old enough to have learned to do
> >>> arithmetic without mechanical/electronic assistance. <shrug>
>
> >> Presumably some of them are just reacting to your rabid
> >> blood shot eys and flecks of foam about the lips etc.
>
> > Charming description, but quite at odds with reality.
>
> That was a joke, Joyce.
>
Was it, now. Hm. That might suggest a reinterpretation of a lot
of what you say.
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-02 05:51 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <9ep5qhF7lgU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #4035 |
blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Peter Flass wrote
>>>>>>> nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote
>>>>>>>> Tim Shoppa<shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Peter Flass<Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> A lot of the Xerox stuff used "rational numbers", stored
>>>>>>>>>> as an integer numerator and an integer denominator.
>>>>>>>>> Not sure what Xerox stuff this is. SDS/XDS, Alto, Star, or
>>>>>>>>> something I never heard of :-). I know there was some academic
>>>>>>>>> overlap between Interlisp/Smalltalk and the Star communities.
>>>>>>>>> I wonder if this was done for bignum or mathematica style
>>>>>>>>> stuff, or if it was a different tack than fixed-point Cobol
>>>>>>>>> style math to approach financial accounting.
>>>>>>>> Look up "fixed slash" arithmetic - I don't know what Xerox did,
>>>>>>>> but I mention that in my computer arithmetic course. I have
>>>>>>>> just added an equally brief reference to quaternions :-)
>>>>>>>> http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/courses/Arithmetic/index.html
>>>>>>>>> I know folks from across the pond could teach me a lot
>>>>>>>>> about how to do math with twelfths and twentieths for
>>>>>>>>> pennies/shillings/pounds and I can see this driving some
>>>>>>>>> interesting British computer representations...
>>>>>>>> Nah. We weren't insane, and represented such numbers as
>>>>>>>> integers, with appropriate conversion functions! When I were
>>>>>>>> a lad, we were required to do mental arithmetic involving
>>>>>>>> currency, and I go back to the days of farthings. That skill
>>>>>>>> has disappeared, which has had the disadvantage that most
>>>>>>>> people no longer have the 'feel' for numbers that used to be
>>>>>>>> normal.
>>>>>>> Interpress, at least. XDS computers had a fairly standard float
>>>>>>> format (IIRC, don't have the details handy). Maybe the Alto,
>>>>>>> did that have FP at all?
>>>>>>> Kids these days can't even do arithmetic in their heads in
>>>>>>> dollars and cents! They can't make change without a cash
>>>>>>> register or calculator telling them how much.
>>>>>> Yes they can. The ones I buy my tomatoes at the market from can.
>>>>> So apparently *some* of them can. I guess you don't observe ones that can't?
>>>> I didnt say that. I was JUST commenting on your claim that none of them can.
>>> Not my claim. Check the attribution lines.
>> I didnt say that. I was JUST commenting on the claim that none of them can.
> What does "I was JUST commenting on your claim" mean, in your usage,
> if it doesn't mean that you were commenting on something *I* --
> not someone else in the discussion -- said?
The second one fixed the error in the first one that you noted.
> (Yeah, yeah, very old post, probably ought to just let this one go,
> but it's *such* a "say what?!" .... )
No its not. You can kick yourself now.
>>>>> I do, sort of [*] ....
>>>> So do I.
>>>>> Could this be something that's different in different countries?
>>>> Nope.
>>>>> [*] My favorite example is what happens when, asked to pay in a
>>>>> retail establishment, I count out an amount of cash that will result
>>>>> in my getting back a few largish bills rather than small bills and
>>>>> change (e.g., $20.79 for a bill of $10.79). Usually the checkout
>>>>> clerk just enters the amount in the cash register,
>>>> Cant say I have ever had one do that.
>>>>> but every once in a while he or she will look at
>>>>> me in puzzlement and say "this is too much".
>>>> Or that.
>>>>> Sometimes my explanation ("but this way you give me back a $10 bill") suffices.
>>>> Or that.
>>>>> Sometimes there's still this look of puzzlement, but usually
>>>>> the clerk can be encouraged to just enter the amount, etc.
>>>> Or that.
>>> Do you ever pay with cash, and supply an amount that's intended
>>> to reduce the number of bills/coins you receive as change?
>> Yes, very frequently, because I otherwise end up with a lot of coins
>> in my fob pocket because I dont often bother to pay with coins
>> unless the amount to be paid can be done with only a couple of coins.
> Huh. Well, maybe you get a better, or at least different, class
> of checkout clerks where you live.
Or maybe your original is just plain wrong.
>>> (Question intended to elicit information, not as some sort of challenge.)
>>>>> Then again, it occurs to me that some of the puzzled looks
>>>>> have come from people old enough to have learned to do
>>>>> arithmetic without mechanical/electronic assistance. <shrug>
>>>> Presumably some of them are just reacting to your rabid
>>>> blood shot eys and flecks of foam about the lips etc.
>>> Charming description, but quite at odds with reality.
>> That was a joke, Joyce.
> Was it, now. Hm. That might suggest a reinterpretation of a lot of what you say.
The jokes do stand out like dogs balls like that one did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-07 11:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9f867rFugsU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #4036 |
(Apologies for not snipping extraneous material, but with RS I
don't really dare .... )
In article <9ep5qhF7lgU2@mid.individual.net>,
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >> blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote
> >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>> Peter Flass wrote
> >>>>>>> nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote
> >>>>>>>> Tim Shoppa<shoppa@trailing-edge.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>>> Peter Flass<Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >>>>>>>>>> A lot of the Xerox stuff used "rational numbers", stored
> >>>>>>>>>> as an integer numerator and an integer denominator.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Not sure what Xerox stuff this is. SDS/XDS, Alto, Star, or
> >>>>>>>>> something I never heard of :-). I know there was some academic
> >>>>>>>>> overlap between Interlisp/Smalltalk and the Star communities.
>
> >>>>>>>>> I wonder if this was done for bignum or mathematica style
> >>>>>>>>> stuff, or if it was a different tack than fixed-point Cobol
> >>>>>>>>> style math to approach financial accounting.
>
> >>>>>>>> Look up "fixed slash" arithmetic - I don't know what Xerox did,
> >>>>>>>> but I mention that in my computer arithmetic course. I have
> >>>>>>>> just added an equally brief reference to quaternions :-)
>
> >>>>>>>> http://www-uxsup.csx.cam.ac.uk/courses/Arithmetic/index.html
>
> >>>>>>>>> I know folks from across the pond could teach me a lot
> >>>>>>>>> about how to do math with twelfths and twentieths for
> >>>>>>>>> pennies/shillings/pounds and I can see this driving some
> >>>>>>>>> interesting British computer representations...
>
> >>>>>>>> Nah. We weren't insane, and represented such numbers as
> >>>>>>>> integers, with appropriate conversion functions! When I were
> >>>>>>>> a lad, we were required to do mental arithmetic involving
> >>>>>>>> currency, and I go back to the days of farthings. That skill
> >>>>>>>> has disappeared, which has had the disadvantage that most
> >>>>>>>> people no longer have the 'feel' for numbers that used to be
> >>>>>>>> normal.
>
> >>>>>>> Interpress, at least. XDS computers had a fairly standard float
> >>>>>>> format (IIRC, don't have the details handy). Maybe the Alto,
> >>>>>>> did that have FP at all?
>
> >>>>>>> Kids these days can't even do arithmetic in their heads in
> >>>>>>> dollars and cents! They can't make change without a cash
> >>>>>>> register or calculator telling them how much.
>
> >>>>>> Yes they can. The ones I buy my tomatoes at the market from can.
>
> >>>>> So apparently *some* of them can. I guess you don't observe ones that can't?
>
> >>>> I didnt say that. I was JUST commenting on your claim that none of them can.
>
> >>> Not my claim. Check the attribution lines.
>
> >> I didnt say that. I was JUST commenting on the claim that none of them can.
>
> > What does "I was JUST commenting on your claim" mean, in your usage,
> > if it doesn't mean that you were commenting on something *I* --
> > not someone else in the discussion -- said?
>
> The second one fixed the error in the first one that you noted.
The, the .... what?! Have you just admitted to making an error?!
(Yeah, yeah, I think this *has* happened on a few occasions.)
> > (Yeah, yeah, very old post, probably ought to just let this one go,
> > but it's *such* a "say what?!" .... )
>
> No its not. You can kick yourself now.
Why would I want to do that?
> >>>>> I do, sort of [*] ....
>
> >>>> So do I.
>
> >>>>> Could this be something that's different in different countries?
>
> >>>> Nope.
>
> >>>>> [*] My favorite example is what happens when, asked to pay in a
> >>>>> retail establishment, I count out an amount of cash that will result
> >>>>> in my getting back a few largish bills rather than small bills and
> >>>>> change (e.g., $20.79 for a bill of $10.79). Usually the checkout
> >>>>> clerk just enters the amount in the cash register,
>
> >>>> Cant say I have ever had one do that.
>
> >>>>> but every once in a while he or she will look at
> >>>>> me in puzzlement and say "this is too much".
>
> >>>> Or that.
>
> >>>>> Sometimes my explanation ("but this way you give me back a $10 bill") suffices.
>
> >>>> Or that.
>
> >>>>> Sometimes there's still this look of puzzlement, but usually
> >>>>> the clerk can be encouraged to just enter the amount, etc.
>
> >>>> Or that.
>
> >>> Do you ever pay with cash, and supply an amount that's intended
> >>> to reduce the number of bills/coins you receive as change?
>
> >> Yes, very frequently, because I otherwise end up with a lot of coins
> >> in my fob pocket because I dont often bother to pay with coins
> >> unless the amount to be paid can be done with only a couple of coins.
>
> > Huh. Well, maybe you get a better, or at least different, class
> > of checkout clerks where you live.
>
> Or maybe your original is just plain wrong.
Or maybe once again you're unwilling to consider that someone else's
experience might differ from yours. Why?
The puzzled-clerk phenomenon I was reporting on doesn't happen often,
but it does happen, and while I suppose I could be misinterpreting
facial expressions, sometimes the clerk even says "you gave me too
much here", which to me seems pretty unambiguously a sign that the
clerk doesn't understand.
> >>> (Question intended to elicit information, not as some sort of challenge.)
>
> >>>>> Then again, it occurs to me that some of the puzzled looks
> >>>>> have come from people old enough to have learned to do
> >>>>> arithmetic without mechanical/electronic assistance. <shrug>
>
> >>>> Presumably some of them are just reacting to your rabid
> >>>> blood shot eys and flecks of foam about the lips etc.
>
> >>> Charming description, but quite at odds with reality.
>
> >> That was a joke, Joyce.
>
> > Was it, now. Hm. That might suggest a reinterpretation of a lot of what you say.
>
> The jokes do stand out like dogs balls like that one did.
>
>
>
--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 14:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4e675f69$2@news.broadpark.no> |
| In reply to | #3509 |
In article <9coqi9F9ppU9@mid.individual.net>,
blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>In article <9cah3eFl5lU1@mid.individual.net>,
>Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Flass wrote
>> > Kids these days can't even do arithmetic in their heads in dollars and
>> > cents! They can't make change without a cash register or calculator
>> > telling them how much.
>>
>> Yes they can. The ones I buy my tomatoes at the market from can.
>
>So apparently *some* of them can. I guess you don't observe ones
>that can't? I do, sort of [*] .... Could this be something that's
>different in different countries?
My dad worked in banks for 20 years before there were digital computers
(and remembers the "computer" as a work title).
He sometimes plays with the heads of the people at the supermarket
checkout by starting to give the money, exact change; and then sends
the goods through, and just goes to get the goods packed.
He hasn't made a mistake in pricing there yet, but the stores have
regular differences. It may hold up a register for a few minutes when
they sort this out.
>[*] My favorite example is what happens when, asked to pay in a
>retail establishment, I count out an amount of cash that will result
>in my getting back a few largish bills rather than small bills and
>change (e.g., $20.79 for a bill of $10.79). Usually the checkout
>clerk just enters the amount in the cash register, but every once
>in a while he or she will look at me in puzzlement and say "this is
>too much". Sometimes my explanation ("but this way you give me back
>a $10 bill") suffices. Sometimes there's still this look of puzzlement,
>but usually the clerk can be encouraged to just enter the amount, etc.
>
>Then again, it occurs to me that some of the puzzled looks have come
>from people old enough to have learned to do arithmetic without
>mechanical/electronic assistance. <shrug>
The critical year for the calculator was 1979, that is when it hit
the large consumer stores; and people that were not in 4th grade by then
are vulnerable to this problem. Which should make a cutoff year of
birth at 1968 or something. I knew there was something about that year.
-- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 14:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20110907141851.6b565e9a.steveo@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #3516 |
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:08:23 +0200 Morten Reistad <first@last.name> wrote: > The critical year for the calculator was 1979, that is when it hit That sounds too late, I started senior school in 1970 using slide rules. By about 1974 enough of the class had calculators that they were allowed to be used in the daily slide rule drills. Those using calculators usually took longer and produced more wrong answers than those with slide rules. I'd put the critical year at 1975, (Sinclair put out the Cambridge in 1973 for about £40 dropping to about £30 quite quickly) by 1975 calculators had pretty much completely supplanted slide rules in schools although I stuck with my 10" British Thornton until 1976 when I got a CBM SR4190 (90 function scientific cost about £50). I still have the slide rule (in perfect order) but that calculator is long since dead and gone. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-07 14:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9cpc1vFhasU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #3520 |
On 2011-09-07, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 14:08:23 +0200 > Morten Reistad <first@last.name> wrote: > >> The critical year for the calculator was 1979, that is when it hit > > That sounds too late, I started senior school in 1970 using slide > rules. By about 1974 enough of the class had calculators that they were > allowed to be used in the daily slide rule drills. Those using calculators > usually took longer and produced more wrong answers than those with slide > rules. > > I'd put the critical year at 1975, (Sinclair put out the Cambridge > in 1973 for about £40 dropping to about £30 quite quickly) by 1975 > calculators had pretty much completely supplanted slide rules in schools > although I stuck with my 10" British Thornton until 1976 when I got a CBM > SR4190 (90 function scientific cost about £50). I still have the slide rule > (in perfect order) but that calculator is long since dead and gone. [Rummages in desk drawer. Gets out Faber-Castell 52/82 Slide Rule. Sighs nostalgically.] I think I bought that in about 1970. The calculators we had at school were mechanical (I have one of those, too, although I only acquired it recently.) The first electronic calculator I saw was in in the prep room of my first year organic chemistry class when I went to University in 1972. It had Nixie tubes, and I've wanted a Nixie tube clock ever since. [Sighs nostalgically some more]. -- Today is Setting Orange, the 31st day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3177 The bankers may have tipped us in, but the politicians dug the hole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch
csiph-web