On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 18:03 -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > Le 2012-03-08 à 11:47:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit : > > >> From: Roman Haefeli <reduz...@gmail.com> > >> 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. > > Is this still an issue when float precision is 64-bit? > > in float32 you have 24 significant bits. > in float64 you have 53 significant bits. > > This means that the limit is pushed back from 16777216 to 9007199254740992 > instead.
But 0.1 still cannot be represented exactly by float64, can it? Roman _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list