Le 13/09/2019 à 17:32, Samuel Gougeon a écrit :
Le 13/09/2019 à 17:20, Stéphane Mottelet a écrit :

Le 13/09/2019 à 17:13, Samuel Gougeon a écrit :
Le 13/09/2019 à 16:59, Stéphane Mottelet a écrit :


Le 13/09/2019 à 16:52, Samuel Gougeon a écrit :
Le 13/09/2019 à 14:22, Stéphane Mottelet a écrit :

However, as I already said it elsewhere, some glitches such as the following  one do occur (see the display of whole x)

--> x=1:0.1:2
 x  =
   1.   1.1   1.2   1.3   1.4   1.5   1.6   1.7000000 1.8 1.9   2.


I agree with Christophe. This output is OK for me. Aestheticism must be encouraged provided that it does not truncate or downgrade the information.

About padding every number: Not OK. This would kill one of the assets of the "v" format: its compacity.

About the fact that 1.7 can't be exactly encoded: It is very surprising for a so limited decimal number. But OK. I am also quite surprised that, in this series, only 1.7 can't be exactly encoded.

bitstring allows to see that only 1, 1.5 and 2 are exactly encoded


So, question: Why 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.8 and 1.9 are displayed without trailing 0, while 1.7 is? The argument/explanation according to which 1.7 can't be exactly encoded does not tell all...

By using format(24) in current Scilab version you will have the explanation :

--> (1:0.1:2)'
 ans  =

   1.
   1.100000000000000088818
   1.199999999999999955591
   1.300000000000000044409
   1.399999999999999911182
   1.5
   1.600000000000000088818
   1.700000000000000177636
   1.8
   1.9
   2.

You have (1.700000000000000177636-1.7) >= %eps but for the others the difference is lower


This is an excellent piece of news. This means that the 1.700000000 "glitch" is meaningful,
yes
and the 0-removing algo is OK. Doesn't it?
also yes

The only issue is that (1.700000000000000177636-1.7) should not be >= %eps.
But this issue is not related to the display.

yeah, we actually got :

--> x=(1:0.1:2); bitstring(x(8)), bitstring(1.7)
 ans  =

 0011111111111011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110100

 ans  =

 0011111111111011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011

the one bit difference  is due to the way implicit vectors are computed.



_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@lists.scilab.org
https://antispam.utc.fr/proxy/1/c3RlcGhhbmUubW90dGVsZXRAdXRjLmZy/lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users

--
Stéphane Mottelet
Ingénieur de recherche
EA 4297 Transformations Intégrées de la Matière Renouvelable
Département Génie des Procédés Industriels
Sorbonne Universités - Université de Technologie de Compiègne
CS 60319, 60203 Compiègne cedex
Tel : +33(0)344234688
http://www.utc.fr/~mottelet

_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@lists.scilab.org
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to