On 4 May 2010 06:37:45 -0700, john.mck...@healthmarkets.com (McKown, John) wrote:
>Hum. Makes me wonder if any hardware will ever introduce rational numbers. One >"rational register" >which is 128 bits(?) long. It contains a 64 bit numerator and 64 bit >denominator. That solves the problem. It could be. Depending on how your particular problem is defined. Too many people don't know how precise their answers should be and get real upset when they see an approximate number. Early measurement of Everest gave 29,002 ft, fudging a bit from the 29,000 found so that we didn't think it was to the nearest 1,000 feet. There is an argument about the Bible saying that pi=3. But pi=3 - to one significant digit, which was appropriate in that example. (I don't want to discuss the accuracy of the Bible here). We've got to know the data, and we've got to make sure the people who will use our calculations know the data, and understand what we are giving them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
