Re: Re: 1`2 == 1*^-10

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg71687] Re: [mg71634] Re: 1`2 == 1*^-10*From*: "Chris Chiasson" <chris at chiasson.name>*Date*: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 03:49:26 -0500 (EST)*References*: <200611251037.FAA15661@smc.vnet.net>

On 11/25/06, Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at sbcglobal.net> wrote: >And it doesn't seem to me there would be any >difficulty in rounding results to two significant digits. Yea, but I'm lazy. I once wrote some code that would do forward error propagation (and associated print formatting) at machine (or whatever) precision if given the initial errors. It has the same problem that I mentioned with significance arithmetic, where all errors are treated as independent. -- http://chris.chiasson.name/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Re: Re: 1`2 == 1*^-10***From:*Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz@mimuw.edu.pl>

**References**:**Re: 1`2 == 1*^-10***From:*Bill Rowe <readnewsciv@sbcglobal.net>