Services & ResourcesWolfram ForumsMathGroup Archive

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

Re: Re: bug in IntegerPart ?

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg47988] Re: [mg47970] Re: bug in IntegerPart ?
• From: "J. McKenzie Alexander" <jalex at lse.ac.uk>
• Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 07:03:21 -0400 (EDT)
• References: <c6g015$4lk$1@smc.vnet.net> <200404260641.CAA06324@smc.vnet.net> <c6l7gv$imk$1@smc.vnet.net> <200404281056.GAA12294@smc.vnet.net> <c6qamj$s6j$1@smc.vnet.net> <c6unq6$as8$1@smc.vnet.net> <c72dh5$lb$1@smc.vnet.net> <200405040508.BAA17783@smc.vnet.net>
• Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

>> The subset of rationals that can be expressed in decimal isn't
>> especially useful for exact calculation anyway.
>
> Would you be more specific, please? It sounds like a first class 
> nonsense but I don't want to jump the gun.

He's referring to the fact that many rationals, such as 2/3, lack a 
finite representation in decimal.

• References:
  • Re: bug in IntegerPart ?
    • From: ancow65@yahoo.com (AC)