In the days when tables were calculated laboriously, it was common
practice to introduce several deliberate rounding errors in every table.
These were used to catch infringements of copyright (and recover
reproduction fees).
Because tables came (and probably still do come) from a very few sourc
Duncan Murdoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My copy of the CRC standard mathematical tables give 0.0721, without
> citation.
>
> > Could two algorithms ``reasonably'' disagree in the 4th decimal
> > place?
>
> One possible source for this error (if it is an error), would be someone
> rounding
Based on integration it appears that .0721 is correct.
> integrate(function(x) exp(-x^2/2)/(2*pi)^.5, -Inf, -1.46)
0.07214504 with absolute error < 1.2e-07
On 11/25/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In checking over the solutions to some homework that I had assigned I
> observe
On 11/25/2006 10:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In checking over the solutions to some homework that I had assigned I
> observed the fact that in R (version 2.4.0) pnorm(-1.46) gives
> 0.07214504. The tables in the text book that I am using for the
> course give the probability as 0.0722.
>
>
In checking over the solutions to some homework that I had assigned I
observed the fact that in R (version 2.4.0) pnorm(-1.46) gives
0.07214504. The tables in the text book that I am using for the
course give the probability as 0.0722.
Fascinated, I scanned through 5 or 6 other text books (amongs
