on floating-point numbers

[Hope Rouselle]

Julio Di Egidio <julio at diegidio.name> writes:

> On Thursday, 2 September 2021 at 16:51:24 UTC+2, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>> Am 02.09.21 um 16:49 schrieb Julio Di Egidio:
>> > On Thursday, 2 September 2021 at 16:41:38 UTC+2, Peter Pearson wrote: 
>> >> On Thu, 02 Sep 2021 10:51:03 -0300, Hope Rouselle wrote: 
>> > 
>> >>> 39.60000000000001 
>> >> 
>> >> Welcome to the exciting world of roundoff error: 
>> > 
>> > Welcome to the exiting world of Usenet. 
>> > 
>> > *Plonk*
>> 
>> Pretty harsh, isn't it? He gave a concise example of the same inaccuracy 
>> right afterwards. 
>
> And I thought you were not seeing my posts...
>
> Given that I have already given a full explanation, you guys, that you
> realise it or not, are simply adding noise for the usual pub-level
> discussion I must most charitably guess.
>
> Anyway, just my opinion.  (EOD.)

Which is certainly appreciated --- as a rule.  Pub-level noise is pretty
much unavoidable in investigation, education.  Being wrong is, too,
unavoidable in investigation, education.  There is a point we eventually
publish at the most respected journals, but that's a whole other
interval of the time-line.  IOW, chill out! :-D (Give us a C-k and meet
us up in the next thread.  Oh, my, you're not a Gnus user: you are a
G2/1.0 user.  That's pretty scary.)

By the way, how's sci.logic going?  I, too, lost my patience there. :-)