Re: Re: bug in IntegerPart ?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg48014] Re: [mg47970] Re: bug in IntegerPart ?
- From: Daniel Lichtblau <danl at wolfram.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 08:11:28 -0400 (EDT)
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
[After this message, I am stopping this thread. I urge those who still
want to argue these issues or "flame" each other
to commmunicate privately - Moderator]
AC/PK/LS:
I had rather hoped that this thread would peter out, but instead
it just morphs into all sorts things. Let us see...
AC wrote (variously):
> RealDigits[0.35]
> => {{3, 5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0}, 0}
> 3.500000000000000
>
> RealDigits[1.65-1.3]
> => {{3, 4, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9}, 0}
>
> 3.499999999999999
>
> 1.65-1.3 // FullForm
> => 0.34999999999999987`
I fail to see what this shows. Moreover if you do a greater or
less check you will find that they are regarded as equal.
Trichotomy applies, even for approximate numbers. (And
speaking of trichotomy...)
>> Interesting phrase, "step out of your box", from someone posting
>> anonymously.
>
> I am just protecting my employment just like you do. I prefer to post
> anonymously what I truly think, then selling my name to support some
> party line.
I did not see a point to this until I heard a rumor that some
people in-house may know from where these posts originate,
and apparently think there may be a security clearance involved.
I guess even anonymity has its costa.
>> But all it might gain
>> you is a paragraph in the folklore Guide to Usenet Cranks.
>
> That is typical. Calling names usually replaces loosing logical
> ground.
I stand corrected. Apparently I am behind on the lingo and
the applicable term is "kooks".
Daniel Lichtblau
Wolfram Research