On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 06:50:07PM +0000, Nick B via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 13:38:09 UTC, jmh530 wrote: > > On Tuesday, 14 March 2017 at 08:21:03 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote: > > > > > > It seems public: > > > http://insidehpc.com/2017/02/john-gustafson-presents-beyond-floating-point-next-generation-computer-arithmetic/ > > > > Also in pdf here > > http://web.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/170201-slides.pdf > > Thank you both for posting these links :). [...]
Indeed. But while the .pdf mentions Posits and Valids, the following slides only discuss Posits. Where's the discussion on Valids? In spite of that, though, Posits appear to be a much better candidate at replacing IEEE 794 floats than the previous unum incarnations. I felt the previous incarnations, while clever and workable in theory, posed too many practical challenges to implement on silicon. The current description of Posits seem to be much more feasible to put on silicon. Still, though, I wonder what Gustafson has up his sleeves wrt. Valids. But I'm wondering how people would react to switching their numerical code to projective reals as opposed to the present IEEE 794 system where you can distinguish between +inf and -inf. Projective reals have nice(r) closure properties, but I can see some cases where being unable to distinguish between +inf and -inf may be problematic. T -- When solving a problem, take care that you do not become part of the problem.