MathGroup Archive 2003

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

Search the Archive

Re: "Sloppy Union"? (Union of a list with *nearly* equ

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg42080] Re: "Sloppy Union"? (Union of a list with *nearly* equ
  • From: AES/newspost <siegman at stanford.edu>
  • Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 02:11:04 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <bcmq9f$ssn$1@smc.vnet.net>
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

In article <bcmq9f$ssn$1 at smc.vnet.net>,
 Bill Rowe <listuser at earthlink.net> wrote:

> No, this won't suffice. N isn't intended to control the output display. More 
> to the point why would you want to reduce the precision of intermediate 
> computations? 

Answers:

1)  Look at the heading:  To allow "sloppy comparisons" within a 
sequence of calculations -- e.g.,"Are these two complex roots (probably) 
the same root of my physical problem?" -- **without** having to stop and 
think about and program some lengthy precision-reducing procedure **each 
time you make a comparison**.

2)  More generally:  When you're doing a series of calculations based on 
imprecise inputs (e.g., from imprecise physical measurements) and you 
neither need nor even want more precision than that.

-- 
"Power tends to corrupt.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely."  
Lord Acton (1834-1902)
"Dependence on advertising tends to corrupt.  Total dependence on 
advertising  corrupts totally." (today's equivalent)  


  • Prev by Date: Condition vs PatternTest
  • Next by Date: Re: Not plotting section of outfitting graphics
  • Previous by thread: Re: "Sloppy Union"? (Union of a list with *nearly* equ
  • Next by thread: Re: "Sloppy Union"? (Union of a list with *nearly* equ