Richard, We're not looking for an explanation of why the two numbers are different. We're looking for an explanation of why, on Luke's machine, unlike anybody else's here, they _aren't_ different. Somehow I don't think portability issues in DrRacket are anybody's homework assignment. So if you have an explanation, please share. :)
Carl Eastlund On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Richard Cleis <rcl...@mac.com> wrote: > I can explain it, but I don't know if it's revealing a solution. > > rac > > On Jan 4, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Stephen Chang wrote: > >> I get results similar to Carl. >> >> Welcome to DrRacket, version 5.0.1.7 [3m]. >> Language: Intermediate Student. >> #i-0.49746596003269394 >> #i-0.4974659600326953 >> #i-4974659600326939.0 >> #i-4974659600326953.0 >>> (equal? (sum (g-series #i1000)) (accu-sum (g-series #i1000))) >> false >>> (equal? (* 10e15 (sum (g-series #i1000))) (* 10e15 (accu-sum (g-series >>> #i1000)))) >> false >>> >> >> >> Luke, can you post the output you get? >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Carl Eastlund <c...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Luke Jordan <luke.jor...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> All that code came straight out of the text, except that I used if instead >>>> of cond. The sum, accu-sum, and g-series defs are all given. In your >>> >>> Ah, yes, now I see where the accumulator-based sum is. Sorry, my mistake. >>> >>>> results I see a difference. When I run it at home it's the same. I can >>>> even (equal? (sum (listof number)) (accu-sum (listof number))) and get >>>> true. >>> >>> No idea what's going on. Maybe someone else will have an idea. >>> >>> --Carl _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
