[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: inconsistency with Inequality testing and Floor
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg60127] Re: inconsistency with Inequality testing and Floor
*From*: "Ray Koopman" <koopman at sfu.ca>
*Date*: Sat, 3 Sep 2005 02:06:22 -0400 (EDT)
*References*: <df944v$62b$1@smc.vnet.net>
*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Bill Rowe wrote:
> I've no idea as to why Mathematica was designed in this manner, but
> generally when I am using machine precision numbers it is to model the real
> world in some way. My knowledge (i.e., measured data) never has sufficient
> precision to argue two numbers within 8 binary bits of each other are
> distinct. So, I much prefer in these cases Mathematica treats them as equal.
>
> However, I can see where this behaviour would cause problems in other
> applications. And for those applications, the solution is to use "==="
> rather than "==",
Not quite. "SameQ" will still give "True" for two machine-precision
reals even though their least significant bits differ.
In[1]:=
Block[{x = 1.+#*$MachineEpsilon}, {(x-1)/$MachineEpsilon,
Ceiling[x], x === 1., x > 1., x == 1.}]& /@ {1,2,64,65}
Out[1]=
{{ 1., 2, True, False, True },
{ 2., 2, False, False, True },
{64., 2, False, False, True },
{65., 2, False, True, False}}
In[2]:=
Block[{y = 1.-#*$MachineEpsilon/2}, {(1-y)2/$MachineEpsilon,
Floor[y], y === 1., y < 1., y == 1.}]& /@ {1,2,127,128}
Out[2]=
{{ 1., 0, True, False, True },
{ 2., 0, False, False, True },
{127., 0, False, False, True },
{128., 0, False, True, False}}
Prev by Date:
**scaling of ndsolve to large systems**
Next by Date:
**Would a code generator from dynamic systems be feasible and useful?**
Previous by thread:
**Re: inconsistency with Inequality testing and Floor**
Next by thread:
**Re: inconsistency with Inequality testing and Floor**
| |