Talk:Floating-point arithmetic: Difference between revisions
→John McLaughlin's Album: new section |
|||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
:I agree. It isn't a loss of significance as defined by [[Loss of significance]]. It is an accumulation of rounding errors (not compensating each other) due to the fact that 1/10 was represented in binary (with a low precision for its usage). In a [[loss of significance]], the relative error increases while the absolute error remains (almost) the same. Here, it is the opposite: the relative error remains (almost) the same, but the absolute error (which is what matters here) increases. [[User:Vincent Lefèvre|Vincent Lefèvre]] ([[User talk:Vincent Lefèvre|talk]]) 00:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
:I agree. It isn't a loss of significance as defined by [[Loss of significance]]. It is an accumulation of rounding errors (not compensating each other) due to the fact that 1/10 was represented in binary (with a low precision for its usage). In a [[loss of significance]], the relative error increases while the absolute error remains (almost) the same. Here, it is the opposite: the relative error remains (almost) the same, but the absolute error (which is what matters here) increases. [[User:Vincent Lefèvre|Vincent Lefèvre]] ([[User talk:Vincent Lefèvre|talk]]) 00:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
== John McLaughlin's Album == |
|||
Should there be a link to John McLaughlin's album at the top in case someone was trying to go there but went here?[[Special:Contributions/2602:306:C591:4D0:AD55:E334:4141:98FA|2602:306:C591:4D0:AD55:E334:4141:98FA]] ([[User talk:2602:306:C591:4D0:AD55:E334:4141:98FA|talk]]) 05:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:49, 7 January 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Floating-point arithmetic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | Computing: CompSci B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Zuse's Z3 floating-point format
There are contradictory documents about the size and the significand (mantissa) size of the floating-point format of Zuse's Z3. According to Pr Horst Zuse, this is 22 bits, with a 15-bit significand (implicit bit + 14 represented bits). There has been a recent anonymous change of the article, based on unpublished Raúl Rojas's work, but I wonder whether this is reliable. Raúl Rojas was already wrong in the Bulletin of the Computer Conservation Society Number 37, 2006 about single precision (he said 22 bits for the mantissa). Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Error in diagram
The image "Float mantissa exponent.png" erroneously shows that 10e-4 is the exponent, while the exponent actually is only -4 and the base is 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.85.65.228 (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
needs simpler overview
put it this way, I'm an IT guy and I can't understand this article, there need to be a much simpler summery for non tech people, using simple English. Right now every other word is another tech term I don't fully understand.
thanks, Wikipedia Lover & Supporter
Failure at Dhahran - Loss of significance or clock drift
This article states in section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point#Incidents that the Failure at Dhahran was caused by Loss of significance. However, the article "MIM-104 Patriot" makes it sound like it was rather simply clock drift. This should be cleared up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.218.209 (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. It isn't a loss of significance as defined by Loss of significance. It is an accumulation of rounding errors (not compensating each other) due to the fact that 1/10 was represented in binary (with a low precision for its usage). In a loss of significance, the relative error increases while the absolute error remains (almost) the same. Here, it is the opposite: the relative error remains (almost) the same, but the absolute error (which is what matters here) increases. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
John McLaughlin's Album
Should there be a link to John McLaughlin's album at the top in case someone was trying to go there but went here?2602:306:C591:4D0:AD55:E334:4141:98FA (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)