[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: David Bein <pyramid!bein@SRI-UNIX.ARPA>*Subject*: floating point question*From*: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>*Date*: Sun, 19 Jan 1986 23:57:00 -0000*Cc*: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA*In-reply-to*: Msg of 19 Jan 1986 17:55-EST from David Bein <pyramid!bein at sri-unix>*Sender*: FAHLMAN@C.CS.CMU.EDU

I'm not sure why you are asking me specifically about this. Of all the people on the Common Lisp mailing list, I'm probably the one who cares the least about the fine points of floating-point roundoff hackery and related mathematicalia. But anyway... It is well known that floating point numbers are mere approximations to mathematical truth, due to roundoff error. So I see no paradox here. No Common Lisp ratio is strictly equal to zero (else it would be reduced to an integer), but it is quite possible to have one whose closest approximation in the domain of short-floats is 0.0. So what? There are an infinite number of other examples where, due to roundoff, two arithmetic expressions that are supposed to lead to identical results in fact produce slightly different floating point numbers. No paradox, just the result of dealing with an approximation. -- Scott

- Prev by Date:
**floating point question** - Next by Date:
**floating point question** - Previous by thread:
**floating point question** - Next by thread:
**Spelling correction** - Index(es):