Re: n accuracy
- From: "Alex Mizrahi" <udodenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 14:17:09 +0300
(message (Hello 'Barry)
(you :wrote :on '(Wed, 30 May 2007 05:33:10 -0400))
(
??>>>> 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.
??>> 2.7182817
??>> last value looks a bit strange, double and long versions have all
??>> digits correct.
BM> What do you get if you simply type:
BM> 2.7182818
BM> ?
it gets converted to ..17. it appears that single-presision IEEE 754 numbers
are not able to represent that decimal value correctly. so i wonder how did
OP get that result. maybe implementation with some other FP numbers..
)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"I am everything you want and I am everything you need")
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: n accuracy
- From: Vassil Nikolov
- Re: n accuracy
- From: fireblade
- Re: n accuracy
- References:
- n accuracy
- From: fireblade
- Re: n accuracy
- From: Edi Weitz
- Re: n accuracy
- From: Alex Mizrahi
- Re: n accuracy
- From: Barry Margolin
- n accuracy
- Prev by Date: Re: Dumbing down?
- Next by Date: Re: randomize-list
- Previous by thread: Re: n accuracy
- Next by thread: Re: n accuracy
- Index(es):