Re: demonic numbers !
From: Cameron MacKinnon (cmackin+nn_at_clearspot.net)
Date: 02/09/05
- Next message: Fred Gilham: "Re: demonic numbers !"
- Previous message: jayessay: "Re: demonic problem descriptions"
- In reply to: Michael Kappert: "Re: demonic numbers !"
- Next in thread: Fred Gilham: "Re: demonic numbers !"
- Reply: Fred Gilham: "Re: demonic numbers !"
- Reply: Michael Kappert: "Re: demonic numbers !"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:48:51 -0500
Michael Kappert wrote:
> Otoh, people usually mean *approximate* values, when they're using
> fractions, don't they? "I'll be there in 1/2 hour." Does this mean
> programming languages must read 1111/10000 as a float? :^)
It's an expectations thing. No neophyte would be surprised if they gave
a machine a batch of numbers (which were, in the person's mind,
approximate) and the machine took the numbers as exact and produced an
exact answer. A good portion of the population ARE surprised when they
give machines numbers to add and the machines take license with the
numbers and produce approximate answers.
There's a popular phrase in the United States right now: "Rounding
error." This phrase hasn't been in use in the general population for
very long. Where do you suppose it came from? Could it be that it's been
the computer guy's explanation to the broader user population whenever
their computers produce slightly wrong results?
- Next message: Fred Gilham: "Re: demonic numbers !"
- Previous message: jayessay: "Re: demonic problem descriptions"
- In reply to: Michael Kappert: "Re: demonic numbers !"
- Next in thread: Fred Gilham: "Re: demonic numbers !"
- Reply: Fred Gilham: "Re: demonic numbers !"
- Reply: Michael Kappert: "Re: demonic numbers !"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|