From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon,  3 Oct 2011 10:46:03 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <5c40d8ac0708e6def897a2f6807e20f1@chula.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <1FC8ACD9-092B-43DB-8FF5-206FA5E02C55@bitblocks.com>
References: <20111002163800.GA12773@polynum.com>
	<20111002175227.2D7F1B856@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<20111002182846.GA20646@polynum.com>
	<20111002190618.54195B852@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<20111003114131.GA7326@polynum.com>
	<1FC8ACD9-092B-43DB-8FF5-206FA5E02C55@bitblocks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] circular fonctions: precision?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 301c84ea-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:41 AM, tlaronde@polynum.com wrote: >>
> > But to come back to programming, when calculus is the crux, the more
> > common/known even new!  programming languages are not great tools,
> > and "portability" i.e.  proved accuracy of the implementation for a
> > wide range of hardware/software is fuzzy.  And it's amazing to see
> > how one can rapidly face errors even with very basic computations.
> > And even with integer arithmetic, not much help is guaranteed by
> > languages.
> >
> Integer & rational arithmetic is guaranteed in Scheme and some other
> languages.  In an R5RS compliant Scheme implementation you have for
> example (/ 5 7) => 5/7.  (If only people get over their irrational
> fear of prefix syntax they would discover a great little language in
> Scheme.) But most prog.  languages do not specify minimal required
> accuracy on standard floating pt.  functions.  May be because most
> language hackers are not numerical analysts!

i think you've got it there.  how do i stuff 5/7 in a 32-bit ethernet register?
if you're close to the h/w, it's probablly just confusing to fight it.

- erik