Re: This calculation is just wrong / computer can't count!

"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:s33lg3pm8rauvoqvpg022st5ulq64e3r4j@xxxxxxxxxx

I can only throw up my hands and say "This person is obviously stupid".
You persist in
using the nonsensical phrase "unreliable" to describe the low-order digit.
It is
understood by anyone who has ever done any computation in any form of
arithmetic,
including paper-and-pencil, that when a finite precision is involved, the
low-order digit
of a computation involving decimal computations is only accurate to ±1/2
digit. The
computations you are getting ARE MATHEMATICALLY RELIABLE!!!!! THEY ARE
NOT INACCURATE!!!!

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. 0.8333337 (with the appropriate number of 3s)
is not a mathematically correct, accurate or reliable result for the
calculation. If the final digit in the number cannot be converted reliably
from bin to dec, it should not be used. In this case, the number should be
presented by the double for future calculations without the final (random)
digit. How basic is that?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: This calculation is just wrong / computer cant count!
    ... Both of which are mathematically incorrect and unreliable in future calculations! ... Is mathematically correct and reliable, but not storable, so my question is why doesn't the basic data type ignore the last, unreliable digit and use 0.8333333333333333? ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: This calculation is just wrong / computer cant count!
    ... using the nonsensical phrase "unreliable" to describe the low-order digit. ... fundamental concepts of arithmetic, thinking instead that decimal representation is the ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
Loading