Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2004
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2004

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: bug in IntegerPart ?

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg47960] Re: bug in IntegerPart ?
  • From: ancow65 at yahoo.com (AC)
  • Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 04:51:01 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <c6vhrn$gcq$1@smc.vnet.net>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Daniel Lichtblau <danl at wolfram.com> wrote in message news:<c6vhrn$gcq$1 at smc.vnet.net>...
> AC wrote:
> > Daniel Lichtblau <danl at wolfram.com> wrote in message news:<c6qamj$s6j$1 at smc.vnet.net>...

> 
> > [.deleted.]
> > We would save time and bandwidth, if you would stop pretending that
> > you don't understand what I'm saying, step out of your box, and admit
> > that there better alternatives exist.
> 
> Interesting phrase, "step out of your box", from someone posting 
> anonymously. 

I am just protecting my employment just like you do. I prefer to post
anonymously what I truly think, then selling my name to support some
party line.

> [.deleted.]
> 
> > Fact that in your implementation they are not, should give
> > you hint that there might be something not as perfect as you seem to
> > believe. You should try to get as close to mathematics as possible.
> 
> What we should do in Mathematica development will hardly be
> determined by the various vaporous "suggestions" that have
> appeared in this thread. I will only comment that I make no
> claim to perfection of Mathematica numerics or for that
> matter of IEEE notions as to how to do numerical computation.
> I only claim these are sensible approaches, and they work well
> in practice. People who prefer to do things differently are
> still welcome to do so.
> 
> [.deleted.]
> 
> 
> As best I can tell, you've sent five or six posts to MathGroup
> berating the Mathematica handling of decimal input, and the
> recent ones are becoming shrill, as happened the last time.
> You have to date in this thread, and in the last go-round,
> betrayed little understanding of the practice of mathematical 
> computation, exact or numeric (I won't even get into the hybrid 
> approaches that nowadays pervade both realms). To what purpose?
> 
> At the end of the day your actual concern, I should hope, would
> be to get your code to behave as you would like. I see two
> alternatives.
> (1) Give input to Mathematica that conforms to our documentation
> of "exact", if you want it treated as such.
> (2) Find another software package that will do with numbers
> whatever it is you have in mind.
> 
> Tirades in regard to what are fairly standard approaches to
> recognition and manipulation of approximate numbers will not

'Decimal' does not mean 'approximate'. 

> effect any useful result. You can continue to post them until the 
> moderator pulls the plug, or until all respondents lose interest
> (I seem the be the only one remaining). But all it might gain
> you is a paragraph in the folklore Guide to Usenet Cranks.

That is typical. Calling names usually replaces loosing logical
ground.

> 
> I have to question your motives in continuing to pursue this.
> You are unhappy with the way in which Mathematica works with
> decimal input. Your proposed alternative appears to involve
> software implementation of base 10 approximate arithmetic,
> which would still not address issues involving values whose
> representations do not terminate in that base, and in any case
> is something we will not pursue. Why continue the discussion?

You carefully avoid to take a meaningfull stand on introducing a
special notation for truly approximate numbers and fail to realize
that decimals are not approximate numbers by default. The further
discussion is pointless indeed.

Good luck with your endeavors.

AC

> 
> 
> Daniel Lichtblau
> Wolfram Research


  • Prev by Date: RE: on ColorFunction and combined images?
  • Next by Date: RE: Re: bug in IntegerPart ?
  • Previous by thread: Re: bug in IntegerPart ?
  • Next by thread: RE: Re: bug in IntegerPart ?