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