Re: finding primes
- From: "Azumanga" <4zumanga@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Oct 2006 06:34:59 -0800
CBFalconer wrote:
Azumanga wrote:
dcorbit@xxxxxxxxx wrote:... snip ...
On the other hand, we are assuming that sqrt(n*n) results in
exactly n and not: (n-1)+0.9999999999999999
In any language I'm familar with, if you found an n where that
happened, you'd submit a HUGE bug comment to the people who make the
langauge. Seriously, it you can't count on that working, I don't see
why you think the division is any more likely to work correctly...
Not very familiar with floating point, are you?
I am, and therefore would never have even considered using them to find
if numbers were prime. Surely it would simply be impossible?
Chris
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: finding primes
- From: websnarf
- Re: finding primes
- References:
- finding primes
- From: Digital Puer
- Re: finding primes
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: finding primes
- From: Logan Shaw
- Re: finding primes
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: finding primes
- From: dcorbit
- Re: finding primes
- From: Azumanga
- Re: finding primes
- From: CBFalconer
- finding primes
- Prev by Date: Re: finding primes
- Next by Date: Re: 450,000x450,000 array: The best programming language to handle it
- Previous by thread: Re: finding primes
- Next by thread: Re: finding primes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|