Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms?

Path	csiph.com!aioe.org!XakcSTEO51npqVb7OVl71w.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	"R.Wieser" <address@not.available>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.javascript
Subject	Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms?
Date	Sat, 15 Oct 2022 13:43:05 +0200
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines	23
Message-ID	<tie6cf$1rda$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<31753076-4806-4dd3-8577-40a4ed23b57dn@googlegroups.com> <tidnpc$1vh5$1@gioia.aioe.org> <tie14h$2lmqv$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info	gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="60842"; posting-host="XakcSTEO51npqVb7OVl71w.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
X-MSMail-Priority	Normal
X-Priority	3
X-Newsreader	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
X-Notice	Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
X-MimeOLE	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-RFC2646	Format=Flowed; Response
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:41102

Show key headers only | View raw

John,

> There's also the translation from binary to decimal to consider.

That sounds as if you know of a problem with it.  What might that be ?

> Anyway, floating point numbers are accurate enough to indicate the 
> relativity effect of someone going past you on a bicycle so I don't think 
> there's a problem.

:-) The fact that that BigInt float exists (or even a 80-bit float) does 
seem to indicate that there are people out there that disagree with you.

And if being able to do a certain (rather random) task is the yardstick than 
I declare that an 8-bit "minifloat" is "big enough for anybody" :-p

... but its not about if you think there is a/no problem, but about 
explaining why the OP sees what he does.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

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