Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #2337
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: 64 bit code |
| Date | 2012-10-13 11:11 +0100 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <k5beod$t0h$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <k5488o$cbv$1@dont-email.me> <k54j49$cns$1@speranza.aioe.org> <162dnU-Rw5IpVOrNnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d@bt.com> <k59snb$oqm$1@speranza.aioe.org> <k59un2$qem$1@dont-email.me> |
BartC wrote: > I didn't understand any of your argument. Using more precision is always > going to help some types of calculations. Some, not all. And if we really look into it, probably not most, at least in a meaningful way. Then, the argument I made in the previous post was that in a significant number of applications, the precision loss brought by relying on single precision types instead of higher-precision ones is completely irrelevant, as it is dwarfed when compared to other errors introduced by the implementation. So, as it was the case in the "part 2" example I referred to, we see tons of attention invested in floating point while, at best, it is responsible for introducing an error which is orders of magnitude smaller than the error already introduced by the method itself. Finally, when we factor in the performance penalty associated with using higher precision types, the irrelevant effect on precision factored with the higher computational cost does show that picking a higher precision floating point type can and does pose a problem. Rui Maciel
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
64 bit code bob <bob@coolfone.comze.com> - 2012-10-10 08:22 -0700
Re: 64 bit code Jongware <jongware@no-spam.plz> - 2012-10-10 17:35 +0200
Re: 64 bit code "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-10 17:37 +0100
Re: 64 bit code Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2012-10-10 12:54 -0500
Re: 64 bit code Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-10-10 21:37 +0200
Re: 64 bit code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-10 21:46 -0500
Re: 64 bit code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-10 20:43 +0100
Re: 64 bit code "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-10-12 08:40 +0100
Re: 64 bit code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-12 12:36 -0500
Re: 64 bit code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-12 20:57 +0100
Re: 64 bit code "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-12 21:30 +0100
Re: 64 bit code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-12 16:33 -0500
Re: 64 bit code "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-13 00:44 +0100
Re: 64 bit code Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-10-12 20:07 -0700
Re: 64 bit code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 11:11 +0100
Re: 64 bit code "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-13 13:11 +0100
Re: 64 bit code Willem <willem@turtle.stack.nl> - 2012-10-13 12:34 +0000
Re: 64 bit code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-13 09:50 -0500
Re: 64 bit code "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-13 17:25 +0100
Re: 64 bit code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 17:53 +0100
Re: 64 bit code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-13 17:05 +0100
Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-13 10:37 +0200
Re: 64 bit code "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-10-27 12:18 +0100
Re: 64 bit code "Chris Uppal" <chris.uppal@metagnostic.REMOVE-THIS.org> - 2012-10-27 12:54 +0100
Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-27 15:13 +0200
Re: 64 bit code Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2012-10-28 04:12 -0500
Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-28 13:10 +0100
Re: 64 bit code "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> - 2012-10-29 04:38 +0000
Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-29 09:30 +0100
Re: 64 bit code "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> - 2012-10-30 22:09 +0000
Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-31 09:47 +0100
Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-31 09:55 +0100
Re: 64 bit code "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> - 2012-10-31 14:32 +0000
Re: 64 bit code Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-10-27 08:51 -0700
Re: 64 bit code "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> - 2012-10-27 17:23 +0100
Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-27 20:43 +0200
Re: 64 bit code "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> - 2012-10-30 22:16 +0000
Re: 64 bit code "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2012-10-31 09:53 +0100
Re: 64 bit code "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> - 2012-10-31 14:33 +0000
Re: 64 bit code Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201211.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-11-01 00:25 +0100
Re: 64 bit code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-10 21:04 +0100
Re: 64 bit code "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-10 21:52 +0100
Re: 64 bit code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-11 10:50 +1300
Re: 64 bit code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-10 21:54 -0500
Re: 64 bit code "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-10-11 13:11 +0100
Re: 64 bit code BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-10-11 11:17 -0500
Re: 64 bit code Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-10-10 13:17 -0700
Re: 64 bit code Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201210.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2012-10-11 19:36 +0200
Re: 64 bit code Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2012-10-12 08:13 -0700
Re: 64 bit code Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-10-10 20:38 +0100
Re: 64 bit code Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> - 2012-10-10 15:22 -0700
Re: 64 bit code Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2012-10-12 02:13 -0500
csiph-web