Re: bug in IntegerPart ?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg47809] Re: bug in IntegerPart ?
- From: Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 04:47:51 -0400 (EDT)
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
On 4/26/04 at 2:41 AM, ancow65 at yahoo.com (AC) wrote:
>"DrBob" <drbob at bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:<c6g015$4lk$1 at smc.vnet.net>...
>>There's NO reason to be puzzled. 1.65 and 1.3 can't be represented
>>exactly in binary, so of course their difference may not be exact,
>>either. Hence the division problems have different numerators.
>Your 'explanation' makes no sense whatsoever. Mathematica's binary
>representations of 1.65-1.3 and 0.35 are the same. That can be seen
>by comparing BaseForm[1.65 - 1.3, 2] with BaseForm[0.35,2]
BaseForm isn't doing what you think and will not show the difference. BaseForm controls only the display of a number. By default Mathematica displays a number to 6 significant digits. Both 1.65 - 1.3 and .35 are the same to 6 significant digits. Consequently, these will display the same when using BaseForm.
To see the difference use RealDigits or FullForm. Both of these clearly show the difference between 1.65 - 1.3 and .35.
>(n = 2^^0.010110011001100110011 )
> => 0.350000
Right, here you've inputed a number accurate to 6 significant digits. So, Mathematica displays 6 significant digits
> Notice the unussual display of trailing zeros.
No, not unusual. Exactly as it should be. If I input 6 significant digits as
.35`6, I expect Mathematica to display 6 significant digits with the default settings.
>Additionally, a completely legitimate expression
>produces a syntax error message.
The expression 2^^BaseForm[0.35, 2] isn't a legitimate expression. BaseForm puts a wrapper on the expression to control display. That is Head at BaseForm[0.35, 2] is BaseForm, not a sequence of binary digits.
To reply via email subtract one hundred and four
Prev by Date:
i don't understand mapping function over a long list
Next by Date:
RE: FindMaximum doesn't work?
Previous by thread:
RE: bug in IntegerPart ?
Next by thread:
RE: Re: bug in IntegerPart ?