They are the same under tolerance: https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Help/Primer/Tolerance.
On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 12:48 AM Ak O <akin...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is strictly based on the tolerance properties of the Operator not the > Type of the Operands (Iyiabo's Prime Theorem). > > > (Integer) ,(Integer) NB. The question we are asking is, are these > Terms the same? > (17) -: (17) > 1 > > (Floating) ,(Integer) NB. So also we are asking, are these Terms the > same? > (17.0)-:(17) > 1 > > > Ak > > > > > > > > On Fri., Jan. 6, 2023, 20:29 Don Kelly, <d...@shaw.ca> wrote: > > > J has it right. > > > > (17+45+65+71+5) -: (17+45+65+71+5) is the match between two integer > > sums-each of which gives the integer result as they have the same boolean > > representation and are equal-giving a "1" result > > > > (17.36+45.24+65.87+71.20+5.00) -: (17+45+65+71+5) is an attempt to > compare > > a floating point number with an integer-the result is floating point and > a > > "0" result > > > > +/ 17.36 45.24 65.87 71.20 5.00 > > > > 204.67 > > > > (+/17+45+65+71+5) > > > > 203 > > > > > > Don Kelly > > > > > > > > On 2023-01-05 4:06 a.m., Ak O wrote: > > > These are both certainly Terms of Degree 2. > > > They are not equalities. They are not the same Term. > > > > > > The point I mean to highlight is the represention (for the purpose of > > > calculation). > > > > > > > > > 16/32 is not 15/30 is not 8/16. An equivalence is 1/2. It should never > be > > > mistaken for Expression Linear /Logarithmic. > > > > > > The problem is in cases where you apply an equivalence simplification > > > improperly sequence wise. > > > You loss coherence of the expression, (which often leads to settling on > > on > > > approximation where resolution can be achieved). > > > > > > This is what we think we are saying. > > > (17+45+65+71+5) -: (17+45+65+71+5) > > > 1 > > > This is what we are actually saying. > > > (17.36+45.24+65.87+71.20+5.00) -: (17+45+65+71+5) > > > 0 > > > Or worse > > > (17.99+45.99+65.99+71.99+5.99 ) -: (17+45+65+71+5) > > > 0 > > > > > > In part, this is why the full representation should be favoured. > > > > > > Particularly for unknown cases where it is common to reach for > > Infinities. > > > > > > I am rambling now. Let me know if this is not clear. > > > > > > > > > Ak > > > > > > > > > On Wed., Jan. 4, 2023, 22:18 Raul Miller,<rauldmil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:24 PM Ak O<akin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> File -> Wed Jan 4 03:40:07UTC 2023 > > >>> The statement: > > >>> So, there's no difference in Degree 1 2 1 0 0 0 and 1 2 1... > > >>> > > >>> This is not correct. These should not be seen as equalities. > > >> That's an interesting perspective. > > >> > > >> It seems to me that both of these are polynomials of degree 2. If > > >> they should have different degrees, what degrees should they have? And > > >> how would this be consistent with the opening sentence at > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_of_a_polynomial#: > > >> > > >> "In mathematics, the degree of a polynomial is the highest of the > > >> degrees of the polynomial's monomials (individual terms) with non-zero > > >> coefficients." > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Raul > > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> For information about J forums seehttp://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > For information about J forums seehttp://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- Devon McCormick, CFA Quantitative Consultant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
