Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #41108
| Path | csiph.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.javascript |
| Subject | Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? |
| Date | Sat, 15 Oct 2022 17:04:16 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Lines | 35 |
| Message-ID | <87h705nke7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <31753076-4806-4dd3-8577-40a4ed23b57dn@googlegroups.com> <tie8s2$am5d$1@solani.org> <tieg7a$5h9$1@gioia.aioe.org> <tiej7q$2pf9o$2@dont-email.me> |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain |
| Injection-Info | reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8e1c2f508dc719b9b49d4fb1f451084c"; logging-data="2957872"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1873MJQOG32+i+3ctqFP3GR6GRpWOZnO74=" |
| User-Agent | Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:HSRZMr9dNS9Bvu5cMwAVrlpGl2M= sha1:yQnGBGj/K0oewFSvBe9pyu1LzFw= |
| X-BSB-Auth | 1.bdd5c5e595f03eb497ca.20221015170416BST.87h705nke7.fsf@bsb.me.uk |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:41108 |
Show key headers only | View raw
John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes: > On 15/10/2022 15:31, R.Wieser wrote: > > <snip> >> P.s. >> I've got some numbers for you : >> -- 1889*1889*1889*1889*1889* etc. calculated thru the FPU >> 53A891D176398773 - 1.0250068783051204e+095 > <snip> > > For what it's worth, the correct value of 1889**29 is : > > 102500687830512064253064716070601123218909116358654017979384519544555980744900395407329380298209 > > so the ...206 value is most accurate and ...207 is only slightly less > accurate. True. But neither 1.0250068783051206e95 nor 1.0250068783051207e95 can be represented in binary floating point. The two representable numbers closest to 1889**29 are 1025006878305120[5]6620692472528153354473784341513556365963141787204703693721957646169653433597952 and 1025006878305120[7]1442079894904626368690870422625608571181699824406695890772528399182534027509760 So the larger of the two is, in fact, the more accurate. There are two kinds of accuracy at this level: (1) what binary floating point number is the closest and, (2) what decimal is the closest representation to /that/ binary number? -- Ben.
Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 15:52 -0700
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-15 01:52 +0100
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2022-10-15 09:33 +0200
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2022-10-15 10:00 +0200
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2022-10-15 11:13 +0100
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2022-10-15 13:43 +0200
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2022-10-15 15:56 +0100
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2022-10-15 17:44 +0200
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-10-15 14:25 +0200
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2022-10-15 16:31 +0200
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2022-10-15 16:22 +0100
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-15 17:04 +0100
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 09:47 -0700
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2022-10-15 18:51 +0200
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 14:35 -0700
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 09:02 -0800
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2022-10-17 02:00 -0700
Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms? Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2022-10-18 07:40 -0700
csiph-web