61–70 of 83 posts
>soup is a programming language I've been working on for a few years that is designed to make it easier for the programmer to write fast, robust programs with no bugs. >Availability >I'm sorry to say soup is not yet available for general use.
Now I am curious what this is.
IEEE754 is always fun. 9007199254740993 is the first integer that cannot be represented as a double precision float. So in python: >>> 9007199254740993.0 9007199254740992.0 What's really surprising is that this number is only ~16 million in single precision floats.
> What's really surprising is that this number is only ~16 million in single precision floats Half of all floats are in [-1, 1].
bc -l is my standard command-line tool for arbitrary precision calculations (-l not needed here but handy for functions like sqrt(), e(), and log l() ): $ bc -l bc 1.06 Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. For details type `warranty'. 9999999999999999.0 - 9999999999999998.0 1.0
bc is my calculator for pretty much everything for decades now. lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"math" is just yet another (implicit and at times poorly defined) standard. The answers are all equally "correct" given a particular set of operating rules, the interesting part is what rules they picked. Edit: See also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_mathematics - "Mathematics has no generally accepted definition"
I agree that what we call "math" is just a set of rules that could be defined differently, but a standard like IEEE-754 is downstream of math, and is explicitly defined as a method to perform arithmetic (which is part of math). So they aren't on the same level, IEEE-754 is not an alternative standard to math. The answers can all be considered correct by a certain definition, but they are not equally correct in our sh…
59 + 1 can very reasonably be 1:00, for example.
I'm not saying 2.0 is the correct answer, I'm just saying it's not any less correct than 1 is.
Chicken Scheme gets it wrong ``` #;1> (- 9999999999999999.0 9999999999999998.0) 2.0 ```
bc -l is my standard command-line tool for arbitrary precision calculations (-l not needed here but handy for functions like sqrt(), e(), and log l() ): $ bc -l bc 1.06 Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. For details type `warranty'. 9999999999999999.0 - 9999999999999998.0 1.0
function calc2 { if [ $# -eq 0 ]; then echo 'pass commands for math evaluation, like calc l(2^32/17) + 3'; fi; echo $* | bc -l; }
Earlier quoted context omitted.
bc is my calculator for pretty much everything for decades now. lol
who does not use bc? people who aren't old unix people ;-) I use bc
It also gives the math result here of course.
% dc
9999999999999999.0 9999999999999998.0 - p
1.0
%perl -Mbignum -E 'say 9999999999999999.0-9999999999999998.0'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
who does not use bc? people who aren't old unix people ;-) I use bc
I consider myself an old unix person, but I use dc. Possibly to make it more confusing to anyone who looks at what I'm doing. It also gives the math result here of course. % dc 9999999999999999.0 9999999999999998.0 - p 1.0 %
Floating point 101. And it almost never matters.
For me, I encounter a floating point bug/issue every 4 years of so. So "almost never" sounds about right to me.