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

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #25738 > unrolled thread

IE and IEE 754

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  IE and IEE 754 RobG <rgqld@iinet.net.au> - 2014-08-27 22:44 +1000
    Re: IE and IEEE 754 John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2014-08-27 15:23 +0100
    IE and IEEE 754 (was: IE and IEE 754) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-08-27 20:59 +0200
    Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-27 22:04 +0200
      Re: IE and IEE 754 "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-27 22:35 +0200
        Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-28 00:07 +0200
          Re: IE and IEE 754 "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-28 00:47 +0200
            Re: IE and IEE 754 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-08-28 10:13 -0700
              Re: IE and IEE 754 "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-28 22:15 +0200
                Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-28 23:24 +0200
                  Re: IE and IEE 754 "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-29 01:16 +0200
                    Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-29 09:32 +0200
        Re: IE and IEE 754 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-08-27 23:59 +0100
          Re: IE and IEE 754 "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-28 02:55 +0200
            Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-28 09:50 +0200
              Re: IE and IEE 754 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-08-28 12:21 +0200
                Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-28 13:42 +0200
            Re: IE and IEE 754 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-08-28 11:27 +0100
              Re: IE and IEE 754 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-08-28 10:16 -0700
                Re: IE and IEE 754 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-08-29 00:04 +0100
                  Re: IE and IEE 754 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-08-29 11:15 -0700
                    IEEE 754 (was: IE and IEE 754) "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-29 21:30 +0200
                      Re: IEEE 754 (was: IE and IEE 754) Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-09-02 11:22 -0700
                    Re: IE and IEE 754 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-08-29 20:42 +0100
                      IEEE 754 (was: IE and IEE 754) "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-29 23:29 +0200
                        Re: IEEE 754 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-08-29 23:27 +0100
                  Re: IE and IEE 754 Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-08-30 20:32 +0100
                    Re: IE and IEE 754 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-08-31 01:04 +0100
                      IE and IEEE 754 Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-09-01 23:05 +0100
      Re: IE and IEE 754 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-08-28 00:05 +0100
        Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-28 08:56 +0200
          Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-28 09:51 +0200
            Re: IE and IEE 754 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-08-28 11:16 +0100
              Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-28 13:34 +0200
                Re: IE and IEE 754 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-08-28 23:41 +0100
                  Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-29 09:09 +0200
                    Re: IE and IEE 754 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-08-29 12:39 +0100
                      Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-29 16:55 +0200
                        Re: IE and IEE 754 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-08-29 18:28 +0100
                          Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-30 00:37 +0200
                            Re: IE and IEE 754 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-08-29 23:53 +0100
                              Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-30 01:08 +0200
                                Re: IE and IEE 754 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-08-30 00:40 +0100
                                  Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-30 09:32 +0200
                        Re: IE and IEE 754 Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2014-08-29 11:22 -0700
                          Re: IE and IEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-30 00:14 +0200
    IE and IEEE 754 (was: IE and IEE 754) "Christoph M. Becker" <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2014-08-27 22:08 +0200
      Re: IE and IEEE 754 RobG <rgqld@iinet.net.au> - 2014-08-28 22:50 +1000
      Re: IE and IEEE 754 RobG <rgqld@iinet.net.au> - 2014-08-28 22:55 +1000
      Re: IE and IEEE 754 (was: IE and IEE 754) Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2014-08-28 21:50 +0100
        Re: IE and IEEE 754 (was: IE and IEE 754) "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-29 09:43 +0200
          Re: IE and IEEE 754 (was: IE and IEE 754) Denis McMahon <denismfmcmahon@gmail.com> - 2014-08-29 08:42 +0000
          Re: IE and IEEE 754 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-08-30 16:24 +0200
            Re: IE and IEEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-30 17:08 +0200
              Re: IE and IEEE 754 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2014-08-30 18:12 +0200
                Re: IE and IEEE 754 "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> - 2014-08-30 18:32 +0200

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#25787

"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote on 29 aug 2014 in 
> comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> "Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> writes:
>> <snip>
>>> So I try not to make comments felt as "accusations" and be "unfair".
>> 
>> I took your calling my remarks childish as an accusation, and an unfair
>> one at that.  If you had simply acknowledged that your remark at the
>> very least *looked* wrong, and then explained that you meant something
>> far less dogmatic, none of this would have happened.
>
> None of what? Did something happen?

Yes, we've both wasted time.  Well I have.  Maybe you haven't, but it
seems to have been a waste of time for both of us.

<snip>
> Blaming someone else for being offended is childish in itself,
> as being offended is a personal thing and consequently there is 
> no right not to be offended.
>
> hen again I don't blame you for being offended, 
> you should only blame yourself.

I'm not offended, so I can't blame anyone on that account.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25788

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote on 30 aug 2014 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> Yes, we've both wasted time.  Well I have.  Maybe you haven't, but it
> seems to have been a waste of time for both of us.

Well I don't think so. 
I think my message, that I think fixed point decimal binary conversion 
should ber considered unreliable, came though.

> I'm not offended, 

Nice to hear.

> so I can't blame anyone on that account.

Being offended is one's own choice, methinks.
Why should you blame someone else for that,
if you were?

I think being offended is a waste of time and energy. 

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25789

"Evertjan." <exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> writes:

> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote on 30 aug 2014 in 
> comp.lang.javascript:
<snip>
>> I'm not offended, 
>
> Nice to hear.
>
>> so I can't blame anyone on that account.
>
> Being offended is one's own choice, methinks.
> Why should you blame someone else for that,
> if you were?

Eh?  I said I don't blame anyone, despite the text you wrote (and then
snipped) that said I should!  Now you say I should not -- but I don't!

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25790

Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote on 30 aug 2014 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>> I'm not offended, 
>>
>> Nice to hear.
>>
>>> so I can't blame anyone on that account.
>>
>> Being offended is one's own choice, methinks.
>> Why should you blame someone else for that,
>> if you were?
> 
> Eh?  I said I don't blame anyone, despite the text you wrote (and then
> snipped) that said I should!  Now you say I should not -- but I don't!

If you don't blame anyone, there should be no "despite",
because you imply that it was worth of feeling offended.

Right?
Well that is nonsense, if you were offended, you should blame yourself.


You impied, that you didn't blame anyone, BECAUSE you were not offended.

Right?
Well that is nonsense, if you were offended, you should blame yourself.

I just proposed, that feeling offended is one's own action, and someone that 
feels offended should search himself, and not blame anyone else, immaterial 
what the other said or did.

I think feeling offended is always silly, 
requiring others to prevent you from being offended even more so. 

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25778

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:55:09 +0200, "Evertjan."
<exxjxw.hannivoort@inter.nl.net> wrote:

>Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote on 29 aug 2014 in 
>comp.lang.javascript:
>
>> But it's unfair of you to make that accusation when I never intended it
>> to be anything other than a counter example to what looked like a simple
>> statement of fact.  I'm sorry you thought I was offering an example that
>> addressed the general problem of decimal to binary floating point
>> conversion, but I can't see how you could think I was, especially as I
>> explicitly suggested that maybe your remark had come over as being more
>> general than you had intended.
>
>Perhaps you think discussion is a contest who wins and who loses.
>
>My idea of discussion is getting to the best solution available,
>better than one can achieve on his own by listening to and weighing 
>eachother's arguments.

     You seem to.

>So I try not to make comments felt as "accusations" and be "unfair".

     Upthread, you stated, "Therefore your example of 0.5 is childish,
as it does not seriously address the problem of binary conversion in
programmes."

     This belies your statement.

>However, as you kept by the statement that binary conversion of fractions 
>can be exact, while such seldom instances do not help in programming,

     They can be extremely useful.  I have done exact fixed-decimal
arithmetic using JavaScript's binary floating-point by using those
cases.  There are a lot of them.  There are more than 2^53 of them.

>and one should be prepared to treat all inputted decimal fraction strings as 
>leading to inexact results if not properly handled, yes, I thought that your 
>arguments were discussion for the above contest and not discussion for 
>programming results. 

     The key is the proper handling, and it is quite possible.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25784

Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> wrote on 29 aug 2014 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>>So I try not to make comments felt as "accusations" and be "unfair".

And I did not, see below.

>      Upthread, you stated, "Therefore your example of 0.5 is childish,
> as it does not seriously address the problem of binary conversion in
> programmes."

That I hold for true.

>      This belies your statement.

It does not.

Saying that someone acts childish is not an accusation,
as acting childish is not a crime,
and it can only be "unfair" be if it is not true.

So instead of accusing me of lying, 
wouldn't it be better to discuss the fairness of my arguments,
and the wrongly percieved wrongness of the childishness?

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25743 — IE and IEEE 754 (was: IE and IEE 754)

RobG wrote:

> In most browsers:
> 
>   0.57 + 8.36 + 3.36 + 0.19 = 12.479999999999999
> 
> in IE it returns:
> 
>   12.479999999999998
> 
> Is IE wrong, or is the above difference allowable within IEEE 754?

Both string representations will be parsed as the same double-precision
64-bit binary format IEEE 754 value[1]:

  100000000101000111101011100001010001111010111000010100011110101

(Therefore: 12.479999999999999 === 12.479999999999998)

The different string representation is allowed for conforming ECMAScript
implementations according to ECMA-262 5.1 Edition, section 9.8.1 step 5[2].

[1] <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-exact.htm#DW4>
[2] <http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-9.8.1>

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25759 — Re: IE and IEEE 754

On 28/08/2014 6:08, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> RobG wrote:
>
>> In most browsers:
>>
>>    0.57 + 8.36 + 3.36 + 0.19 = 12.479999999999999
>>
>> in IE it returns:
>>
>>    12.479999999999998
>>
>> Is IE wrong, or is the above difference allowable within IEEE 754?
>
> Both string representations will be parsed as the same double-precision
> 64-bit binary format IEEE 754 value[1]:
>
>    100000000101000111101011100001010001111010111000010100011110101
>
> (Therefore: 12.479999999999999 === 12.479999999999998)
>
> The different string representation is allowed for conforming ECMAScript
> implementations according to ECMA-262 5.1 Edition, section 9.8.1 step 5[2].
>
> [1] <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-exact.htm#DW4>
> [2] <http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-9.8.1>

Thanks, that seems definitive.

-- 
Rob





-- 
Rob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25760 — Re: IE and IEEE 754

On 28/08/2014 6:08, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> RobG wrote:
>
>> In most browsers:
>>
>>    0.57 + 8.36 + 3.36 + 0.19 = 12.479999999999999
>>
>> in IE it returns:
>>
>>    12.479999999999998
>>
>> Is IE wrong, or is the above difference allowable within IEEE 754?
>
> Both string representations will be parsed as the same double-precision
> 64-bit binary format IEEE 754 value[1]:
>
>    100000000101000111101011100001010001111010111000010100011110101
>
> (Therefore: 12.479999999999999 === 12.479999999999998)
>
> The different string representation is allowed for conforming ECMAScript
> implementations according to ECMA-262 5.1 Edition, section 9.8.1 step 5[2].
>
> [1] <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-exact.htm#DW4>
> [2] <http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-9.8.1>

Thanks, that seems definitive.

-- 
Rob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25766 — Re: IE and IEEE 754 (was: IE and IEE 754)

In comp.lang.javascript message <ltldsa$nio$1@solani.org>, Wed, 27 Aug
2014 22:08:48, Christoph M. Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> posted:

>RobG wrote:
>
>> In most browsers:
>>
>>   0.57 + 8.36 + 3.36 + 0.19 = 12.479999999999999
>>
>> in IE it returns:
>>
>>   12.479999999999998
>>
>> Is IE wrong, or is the above difference allowable within IEEE 754?


The IEEE Double obtained for the left hand side is the same in IE8 and
Firefox 31, in WinXP sp3 - the bit pattern in Hex is 4028f5c28f5c28f5.
It is the Number to String conversion that gives differing results.


>Both string representations will be parsed as the same double-precision
>64-bit binary format IEEE 754 value[1]:
>
>  100000000101000111101011100001010001111010111000010100011110101
>
>(Therefore: 12.479999999999999 === 12.479999999999998)
>
>The different string representation is allowed for conforming ECMAScript
>implementations according to ECMA-262 5.1 Edition, section 9.8.1 step 5[2].
>
>[1] <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-exact.htm#DW4>

I was about to quote that! (:-((>


I have seen worse - in one browser, using toString(2) on a non-integer
gave, about half of the time, a string ending with a "2".

I don't recall whether I have ever known whether there exists a number
or expression in string form which converts to different IEEE Doubles in
different browsers.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK.   E-mail, see Home Page.    Turnpike v6.05.
 Website  <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
 PAS EXE etc. : <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see in 00index.htm
 Dates - miscdate.htm estrdate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25772 — Re: IE and IEEE 754 (was: IE and IEE 754)

Dr J R Stockton <reply1400@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote on 28 aug 2014 
in comp.lang.javascript:

> I don't recall whether I have ever known whether there exists a number
> or expression in string form which converts to different IEEE Doubles in
> different browsers.

Indeed, as Javascript has no such thing as "doubles", methinks, John.

I would not trust my money to crossbrowser clientside Javascript,
who knows what a prehistoric browser, [where primitive forms of Javascript 
are still handled on clay tablets?] has in store, [or how numeric values are 
outputted temporally localised in cuneiform.]

<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Akkadian_inscriptions#mediaviewe
r/File:Cuneiform_inscriptions_from_Persepolis_by_Nickmard_Khoey.jpg>

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25773 — Re: IE and IEEE 754 (was: IE and IEE 754)

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:43:05 +0200, Evertjan. wrote:

> I would not trust my money to crossbrowser clientside Javascript

+1

Real "money sums" should be done by appropriate systems, not by a web 
page. You might generate representative figures for a loan or mortgage or 
deposit or hire purchase or whatever using a web page, but the final 
agreement isn't going to use values generated by JS on the client 
browser, it's going to use the real numbers generated by the financial 
application that calculates such things.

-- 
Denis McMahon, denismfmcmahon@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25791 — Re: IE and IEEE 754

Evertjan. wrote:

> Dr J R Stockton […]:
>> I don't recall whether I have ever known whether there exists a number
>> or expression in string form which converts to different IEEE Doubles in
>> different browsers.
> 
> Indeed, as Javascript has no such thing as "doubles", methinks, John.
> 
> I would not trust my money to crossbrowser clientside Javascript,

There is no “Javascript” (see signature), and ECMAScript implementations 
like JavaScript, which do not have to be client-side, support, per 
Specification, an implementation of IEEE 754 “double-precision” floating-
point values, or “doubles” for short. [1]

In fact, it is up to now the only numeric type supported by those 
implementations that is based on a public standard.

You would be well-advised to do considerably more research on the subject 
matter before participating in a discussion.  (And to stop address munging 
and get a real name.)

_______
[1] <http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-4.3.19>
    <http://ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-8.5>
-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25792 — Re: IE and IEEE 754

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote on 30 aug 2014 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

>> I would not trust my money to crossbrowser clientside Javascript,
> 
> There is no Javascript

That would be the best reason not to trust it, Thomas. 

However, like Nigerian scam, many people do.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25793 — Re: IE and IEEE 754

Evertjan. wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […]:
>>> I would not trust my money to crossbrowser clientside Javascript,
>> There is no Javascript
> 
> That would be the best reason not to trust it, Thomas.

One cannot not trust something that does not exist in the first place.
 
> However, like Nigerian scam, many people do.

Reductio ad absurdum.

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | SVN: <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | ES Matrix: <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#25794 — Re: IE and IEEE 754

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote on 30 aug 2014 in 
comp.lang.javascript:

> Evertjan. wrote:
> 
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [ƒ İ]:
>>>> I would not trust my money to crossbrowser clientside Javascript,
>>> There is no Javascript
>> 
>> That would be the best reason not to trust it, Thomas.
> 
> One cannot not trust something that does not exist in the first place.
>  
>> However, like Nigerian scam, many people do.
> 
> Reductio ad absurdum.

Quodcumque alio nomine, dulcis est odor rosea.

-- 
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web