Re: Ten Commandments (On Topic!)
- From: Ken Plotkin <kplotkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 01:49:01 -0500
On 27 Nov 2005 17:28:39 -0800, lindahl@xxxxxxx (Greg Lindahl) wrote:
>Perhaps the generalization of "doing numerical analysis by
>generalization is inaccurate" is a better one?
That was pretty much the point of my post.
I suspect that the 32-64-128 bit survey results Dan gave reflected
what the authors of those programs worked out what they needed.
With cheap memory and computing power these days, and MPUs on PCs
(maybe other systems?) doing the actual calculations in 80 bits,
there's no pressing reason to not use double precision. (Other than
age and habit, which shouldn't be underestimated.)
Having grown up with 3 to 3 1/2 significant figures, though, I tend to
appreciate 8 or 16 significant figures as a labor saving device. You
can write expressions in fairly simple ways, rather than push the
algebra to give you expressions that focus on the digits that matter.
Ken Plotkin
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ten Commandments (On Topic!)
- From: Dan Nagle
- Re: Ten Commandments (On Topic!)
- From: Greg Lindahl
- Re: Ten Commandments (On Topic!)
- References:
- Re: Ten Commandments (On Topic!)
- From: Ken Plotkin
- Re: Ten Commandments (On Topic!)
- From: Gordon Sande
- Re: Ten Commandments (On Topic!)
- From: Greg Lindahl
- Re: Ten Commandments (On Topic!)
- Prev by Date: Re: Ten Commandments (On Topic!)
- Next by Date: Re: Ten Commandments (On Topic!)
- Previous by thread: Re: Ten Commandments (On Topic!)
- Next by thread: Re: Ten Commandments (On Topic!)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
