Re: Re: Bug in 5.1??

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg54528] Re: [mg54469] Re: Bug in 5.1??*From*: DrBob <drbob at bigfoot.com>*Date*: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 04:23:59 -0500 (EST)*References*: <200502210844.DAA27157@smc.vnet.net>*Reply-to*: drbob at bigfoot.com*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

It doesn't make sense to ANYBODY, as far as I can tell. But we're not supposed to complain, because somebody ALREADY complained (some time or another). Bobby On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 03:44:38 -0500 (EST), Dana DeLouis <delouis at bellsouth.net> wrote: > Seems to me that the loss of precision returns an "Interval", which is still > greater than zero. It looks like the cutoff between True & False is a hair > above -1, which doesn't make sense to me either. > > Interval[N[5, 2]] > Interval[{4.9, 5.1}] > > N[5, 2] > -1 > True > > N[5, 2] > -1 + $MachineEpsilon > False > -- DrBob at bigfoot.com www.eclecticdreams.net

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Re: Re: Bug in 5.1??***From:*Andrzej Kozlowski <akozlowski@gmail.com>

**References**:**Re: Bug in 5.1??***From:*"Dana DeLouis" <delouis@bellsouth.net>