On 08.03.2012 20:47, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Roman Haefeli <reduz...@gmail.com> >> To: pd-list@iem.at >> Cc: >> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 1:52 PM >> Subject: Re: [PD] Some more float weirdness/fun >> >> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 16:23 +0100, Lorenzo Sutton wrote: >>> Or, beware of trying to compare floats with [==] ... >>> >>> Lorenzo. >> >> That's a good example of the implications inherent in floats. What you >> call a work-around is actually the correct solution. When counting, make >> sure you count with something that can precisely represented by floats, >> otherwise the error will grow with each iteration. Integers up to >> 1.6*10^7 meet that criterion. >> >> Roman > > Is this still an issue when float precision is 64-bit?
The issue will arise later, because you have two a many bits for representing your value, but the problem still exists. As Pd is a programming language, this is good read on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point#IEEE_754:_floating_point_in_modern_computers http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html or to make the wording quotable: https://twitter.com/#!/tomscott/status/174143430170120192 Best regards, Thomas -- "As long as people kept worrying that the machines were taking over, they wouldn't notice what was really happening. Which was that the programmers were taking over." (Robert Anton Wilson - The Homing Pidgeons) http://www.residuum.org/ _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list