Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #41106

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

From John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.lang.javascript
Subject Re: Are Floating Point Numbers still a Can of Worms?
Date 2022-10-15 16:22 +0100
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <tiej7q$2pf9o$2@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <31753076-4806-4dd3-8577-40a4ed23b57dn@googlegroups.com> <tie8s2$am5d$1@solani.org> <tieg7a$5h9$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

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. The ...204 value illustrates why you want to cut down the 
number of floating point operations to get an answer. Even so, it is 
still good enough for many purposes

   John

Back to comp.lang.javascript | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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