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

OK, I give up. You really are irredeemably stupid. How many times does the obvious have
to be explained to you?

The result 0.83333333333333337 is mathematically correct, reliable, and only your
continuing refusal to accept reality is the problem. The final digit is being converted
absolutely reliably. It is absolutely, positively, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the
CORRECT answer, and your insistence that it is not accurate, and all your allegations
about accuracy and reliability, are simply asinine. The final digit is NOT random, it is
precise and well-defined.

What is basic is that you have absolutely refused to accept reality, have no concept of
how arithmetic works outside your tiny little world view, and your tiny little world view
is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Every statement you make in this paragraph
is wrong. I am right, because I am telling you what reality is all about, and how actual
arithmetic works in computers. I've been doing it a whole long longer than you have,
unless you have been in the profession for 45 years. The final digit is converted
reliably from binary to decimal, and if you think it isn't, you are having severe
emotional problems that you should see a mental health professional to resolve, because
you are no longer it touch with any form of reality the rest of us have been working in
for decades. You cannot "present the double for future calculations without the final
(random) digit" because (a) the statement is so nonsensical I cannot conceive of what it
means and (b) hardware doesn't work that way. The digit is not random, it is VERY
well-defined; it is only your failure to understand arithmetic that causes the problem.
Note that you CANNOT discuss decimal arithmetic, or text strings that represent numbers,
because that is where you are completely failing to comprehend reality. The ONLY valid
representation is the 64-bit binary representation; anything else you see is irrelevant.

You even remain stupid enough to think that 0.83333333333333333 can even be represented in
a computer, which under IEEE-754 is impossible. You seem to think that the "decimal"
digit should be dropped from computations, when it doesn't exist at all, except in your
fevered imagination. I have lost track of how many people have explained to you that (a)
0.83333333333333333 cannot ever be represented and (b) 0.83333333333333337 is the correct
answer beyond any shadow of a doubt, and (c) all 64 bits of the floating point value
always participate in all computations. The CONCEPT that you can drop the lowest decimal
digit of a floating point value is intrinsically nonsensical.

So just stop. Take a deep breath. Go read the papers everyone has pointed you at. Forget
that decimal representations have any meaning. Grow up. Get a grip on reality. And stop
insisting that you have a clue about computer arithmetic, because all you are doing is
proving, message after message, that you are totally clueless. After you understand
computer arithmetic, you will realize that just about every statement you have made about
correctness, errors, randomness, etc. is completely nonsensical. Until you understand it,
stop wasting everyone's time with your meaningless requests.

I'm done with this. You cannot be educated because you refuse to understand the basic
problem. You think your experience with decimal arithmetic means that it is the only form
of arithmetic that can exist. In spite of the efforts that have been made to educate you,
you are refusing to read the papers, study the Web sites, or even run the experiments that
will demonstrate how floating point arithmetic works. Nothing you insist on about what
you think arithmetic should work like will change the fact that your fundamental
assumptions are wrong and as long as you fail to change your assumptions to match reality
you will never be able to use a computer effectively.

I suggest that you consider using only integers in your programming. You are not
qualified to use floating point.
joe



On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 21:31:42 +0100, "GT" <ContactGT_remove_@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"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?

Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email: newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: This calculation is just wrong / computer cant count!
    ... In case you missed the reality check, YOU ARE GETTING THE CORRECT ANSWER ... asked him about issues of optimizing floating point computations. ... there really isn't very much call for three billion digit arithmetic otherwise. ... In front of me, I have a casio calculator, a ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: This calculation is just wrong / computer cant count!
    ... REALITY CHECK: THE PROBLEM IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY ... floating point value due to roundoff error. ... It is NOT due to the '7' digit, ... If the notion of actually doing real work offends you, consider a career change. ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: This calculation is just wrong / computer cant count!
    ... We do not share your reality. ... In the real world, other forms of arithmetic exist, and floating point binary ... signficant digit. ... about accuracy and reliability, are simply asinine. ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
  • Re: OT: Chip & Pin: How safe are the Keypad terminals?
    ... which means no matter how much you juggle it about it's still a 4 digit ... You want the high level of encryption on any data links to try and stop ... what you could do to get the required information. ... criminal intent to actually translate the thoughts into reality. ...
    (uk.people.consumers.ebay)
  • Re: This calculation is just wrong / computer cant count!
    ... The result 0.83333333333333337 is mathematically correct, reliable, and ... continuing refusal to accept reality is the problem. ... The final digit is ... about accuracy and reliability, are simply asinine. ...
    (microsoft.public.vc.mfc)
Loading