Re: inconsistency with Inequality testing and Floor

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg60143] Re: inconsistency with Inequality testing and Floor*From*: Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at earthlink.net>*Date*: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 03:02:08 -0400 (EDT)*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

On 9/3/05 at 2:06 AM, koopman at sfu.ca (Ray Koopman) wrote: >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. You are correct. I should have read the documentation for SameQ which says two Real numbers are considered equal if the difference between them is less than the uncertainty of either. So, to get a correct comparison of two nearly identical machine precision numbers RealDigits should work. That is: In[1]:= x = 1. + $MachineEpsilon; RealDigits[x, 2] == RealDigits[1., 2] Out[2]= False Admittedly, this is less convienent than using SameQ. But it is clearly possible to perform a comparison of two machine precision numbers and return False if they are not identical. -- To reply via email subtract one hundred and four