Paul Davis wrote: >>i'd be happy to hear a good example proving this wrong. but >>take note that i don't accept 1/2, 1/3 and relatives as >>qualifying because they can better be (and usually are) >>expressed using integer numbers.
[long reasonings elided] alright, have your way then if you need all the complication for so little to gain, and if your scheme gets the votes. >>about arithmetic: float operations, as you know, introduce >>round-off error. integers can be used in accumulators with >>much less inconvenience. > >sorry, its just wrong. prove it. tim