Re: n accuracy
- From: Barry Margolin <barmar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 05:33:10 -0400
In article <465d3719$0$90269$14726298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Alex Mizrahi" <udodenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(message (Hello 'Edi)
(you :wrote :on '(Wed, 30 May 2007 09:26:35 +0200))
(
??>> Yesterday I was lisping some statistics so I needed e, considering I
??>> couldn't find it at hyperspec (too much coffein I guess) so I used
??>> (exp 1) => 2.7182818 but author of the stat book seemed to have
??>> different idea about some digits.
EW> This looks like the correct approximation for 8 digits to me.
btw, in CLISP:
[1]> (exp 1l0)
2.7182818284590452354L0
[2]> (exp 1d0)
2.718281828459045d0
[3]> (exp 1.0)
2.7182817
last value looks a bit strange, double and long versions have all digits
correct.
What do you get if you simply type:
2.7182818
?
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: n accuracy
- From: Alex Mizrahi
- Re: n accuracy
- References:
- n accuracy
- From: fireblade
- Re: n accuracy
- From: Edi Weitz
- Re: n accuracy
- From: Alex Mizrahi
- n accuracy
- Prev by Date: code critique
- Next by Date: Re: Macro Help: 1 macro => many sexp
- Previous by thread: Re: n accuracy
- Next by thread: Re: n accuracy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
