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