Re: loss of precision
- From: nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Maine)
- Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2008 21:26:29 -0700
rudra <bnrj.rudra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
dear richard and glen,
probably you misunderstood me. what i want to mean is "why the number
0.6 is represented by 0.59999999999999998 ?"
No, I don't think we did. I'd say that you misunderstood the answers, or
anyway, so it seems. Do you understand the difference between binary and
decimal? Or did you just skip over that part of the answers (the most
important part)? There is no number 0.6 in a finite binary
representation. To get exactly 0.6, you would need a decimal
representation or an infinite binary one, neither of which you are going
to get.
In fact, I will further note that the number is not "represented" by
0.599...etc. That, as you might note, is decimal. The number is
represented by the internal binary representation. The 0.5999...etc is
not the representation, but instead is the result of converting the
representation to a decimal form for output. It is actually quite
important to understand that; it is more than just a quibble of
terminology.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgement comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgement.
domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain
.
- References:
- loss of precision
- From: rudra
- Re: loss of precision
- From: Richard Maine
- Re: loss of precision
- From: glen herrmannsfeldt
- Re: loss of precision
- From: Gary Scott
- Re: loss of precision
- From: glen herrmannsfeldt
- Re: loss of precision
- From: rudra
- loss of precision
- Prev by Date: Re: loss of precision
- Next by Date: Re: loss of precision
- Previous by thread: Re: loss of precision
- Next by thread: Re: loss of precision
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
