On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 19:57:20 -0800, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Gregory Ewing
> wrote:
>> It's far from clear what *anything* multiplied by itself zero times
>> should be.
>>
>> A better way of thinking about what x**n for integer n means is this:
>> Start with 1, an
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Gregory Ewing
wrote:
> It's far from clear what *anything* multiplied by
> itself zero times should be.
>
> A better way of thinking about what x**n for integer
> n means is this: Start with 1, and multiply it by
> x n times. The result of this is clearly 1 when n
>
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
I'm just sketching an informal proof. If you want to make it vigorous
I think the usual term is "rigorous", unless the mathematician
is taking some kind of stimulant... :-)
--
Greg
--
https://mail.py
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Arguably, *integer* 0**0 could be zero, on the basis that you can't take
limits of integer-valued quantities, and zero times itself zero times
surely has to be zero.
It's far from clear what *anything* multiplied by
itself zero times should be.
A better way of thinking a
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:20 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
-snip-
> I don't understand what you're trying to say here. You can't just
> arbitrarily declare that 0**1 equals something other than 0 (or for that
> matter, doesn't equal anything at all).
You can, actually. It's just silly. (Similarly, yo
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 11:24 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
>> 5 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 = 0
>
> Where did the 5 come from?
>
> You're effectively saying that 0**0 becomes 5*0**0, then cancelling the 0**0
> because they're all zeroes and so don't matter, leaving 5. And that simply
> doesn't work. If it did wo
I want to emphasis that I'm not really arguing that 0**0 should evaluate as
0. That's probably the least useful thing we can have out of the four
possibilities:
- return 1
- return NAN
- raise an exception
- return 0
But in the spirit of the Devil's Advocate, I mentioned that there was an
argumen
Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Steven D'Aprano :
>
>> mathematicians with a pragmatic bent
>
> You shouldn't call engineers and scientists mathematicians ("with a
> pragmatic bent"). Rigor is an absolute requirement for any mathematics.
I wasn't referring to engineers, scientists, short-order cooks or
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On the basis that m**n means m multiplied by itself n times:
>
> 5**4 = 5*5*5*5 = 625
>
> that gives us:
>
> 0**0 = zero multiplied by itself zero times.
>
> You can multiply 0 by any number you like, and the answer will always be 0,
> not 1
I think we're in violent agreement here, nevertheless I think you're right
for the wrong reasons. See below...
Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 12:49 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Dave Angel wrote:
What you d
Steven D'Aprano :
> Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> No you can't -- that would make arithmetic inconsistent. 0**1 is
> perfectly well defined as 0 however you look at it:
You *could* leave 0**1 undefined. You *could* leave 7+0 undefined.
However, that would make mathematical proofs more complex as they
Steven D'Aprano :
> mathematicians with a pragmatic bent
You shouldn't call engineers and scientists mathematicians ("with a
pragmatic bent"). Rigor is an absolute requirement for any mathematics.
Marko
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Chris Angelico :
> I'm not a mathematical expert, so I don't quite 'get' this. How does
> this justify 0**0 being equal to 0.5?
Many operations like this are defined in terms of some very strong
argument of uniqueness. Ultimately, the key point is safety in
mathematical deductions. One minimal re
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Devin Jeanpierre
wrote:
>> Arguably, *integer* 0**0 could be zero, on the basis that you can't take
>> limits of integer-valued quantities, and zero times itself zero times
>> surely has to be zero.
I should have responded in more detail here, sorry.
If you aren'
Devin Jeanpierre writes:
[...]
> domain of the natural numbers. Knuth says that thought of
> combinatorially on the naturals, x**y counts the number of mappings
> from a set of x values to a set of y values.
It's the other way around, of course: from a set of y values to a set
of x values.
Whi
l theorem is to be valid when x=0,
> y=0, and/or x=-y. The theorem is too important to be arbitrarily
> restricted! By contrast, the function 0^x is quite unimportant.
>
> More discussion here:
>
> http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.to.0.power.html
I've already been c
Marko, your argument is "this function x**y(a, x) must be continuous
on [0, inf), and to be continuous at 0, 0**0 must be a". Since there
are many possible values of a, this is not a "justification", this is
a proof by contradiction that the premise was faulty: x**y(a, x)
doesn't have to be continu
By contrast, the function 0^x is quite unimportant.
More discussion here:
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.to.0.power.html
> I expected 1, nan, or an exception, but more importantly, I expected
> it to be the same for floats and decimals.
Arguably, *integer* 0**0 could be zero, on th
On 01/09/2015 02:37 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
Devin Jeanpierre :
If 0**0 is defined, it must be 1.
You can "justify" any value a within [0, 1]. For example, choose
y(a, x) = log(a, x)
Then,
limy(a, x) = 0
x -> 0+
and
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Devin Jeanpierre :
>
>> If 0**0 is defined, it must be 1.
>
> You can "justify" any value a within [0, 1]. For example, choose
>
>y(a, x) = log(a, x)
>
> Then,
>
> limy(a, x) = 0
>x -> 0+
>
> and:
>
>lim[x -> 0+] x**y(a, x
Devin Jeanpierre :
> If 0**0 is defined, it must be 1.
You can "justify" any value a within [0, 1]. For example, choose
y(a, x) = log(a, x)
Then,
limy(a, x) = 0
x -> 0+
and:
lim[x -> 0+] x**y(a, x) = a
For example,
>>> a = 0.5
>>> x = 1e-100
>>> y = math.log(a, x)
Dave Angel :
> What you don't say is which behavior you actually expected. Since 0**0
> is undefined mathematically, I'd expect either an exception or a NAN
> result.
IEEE 754 mandates that 0**0 should evaluate to 1:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaN#Operations_generating_NaN>
The standar
Thanks Ben, with your encouragement I have filed
http://bugs.python.org/issue23201
-- Devin
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Dave Angel writes:
>
>> What you don't say is which behavior you actually expected. Since
>> 0**0 is undefined mathematically, I'd expect either an ex
Dave Angel writes:
> What you don't say is which behavior you actually expected. Since
> 0**0 is undefined mathematically, I'd expect either an exception or a
> NAN result.
Do you think that the ‘int’ and ‘float’ types, which do produce a number
result for ‘0 ** 0’, are buggy and should be fixe
define 0**1, of course. If 0**0 is defined, it must be 1. I
Googled around to find a mathematician to back me up, here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9205211 (page 6, "ripples").
I expected 1, nan, or an exception, but more importantly, I expected
it to be the same for floats and decimals.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
> I noticed some very PHP-ish behavior today:
>
import decimal
x = 0
y = float(x)
z = decimal.Decimal(x)
x == y == z == x
> True
x ** x
> 1
y**y
> 1.0
z**z
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File
On 01/08/2015 09:33 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote:
I noticed some very PHP-ish behavior today:
import decimal
x = 0
y = float(x)
z = decimal.Decimal(x)
x == y == z == x
True
x ** x
1
y**y
1.0
z**z
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/decimal
Devin Jeanpierre writes:
> decimal.InvalidOperation: 0 ** 0
>
> I'd file a bug report but I'm anticipating some rational (heh)
> explanation. Any ideas?
First note that it's explicitly documented as an invalid operation
.
So someone has at least thought about it and deliberately decided it
shoul
I noticed some very PHP-ish behavior today:
>>> import decimal
>>> x = 0
>>> y = float(x)
>>> z = decimal.Decimal(x)
>>> x == y == z == x
True
>>> x ** x
1
>>> y**y
1.0
>>> z**z
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/decimal.py", line 2216, in __pow__
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 10:46:56 +1000, alex23 wrote:
>On 26/08/2014 3:55 AM, Seymore4Head wrote:
>> I changed the program just a little to give myself a little practice
>> with number formats. The main thing I wanted to do was make the
>> decimal points line up. The problem I am having is with the
On 26/08/2014 3:55 AM, Seymore4Head wrote:
I changed the program just a little to give myself a little practice
with number formats. The main thing I wanted to do was make the
decimal points line up. The problem I am having is with the print
(count)(payment)(balance) line.
While I don't want
on. I am not using it, but I am
keeping it in.
row2 is row4 with:
(math.floor(number * 100) / 100, ',.2f')
taken out leaving',.2f'
For some reason, it is not working. If I try to use row2 I get this
error:
http://i.imgur.com/FgeF9c9.jpg
Most of my learning is trial and erro
n formatting.
Row4 is the old makeitmoney function. I am not using it, but I am
keeping it in.
row2 is row4 with:
(math.floor(number * 100) / 100, ',.2f')
taken out leaving',.2f'
For some reason, it is not working. If I try to use row2 I get this
error:
http://i.img
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Seymore4Head
wrote:
> For some reason, it is not working. If I try to use row2 I get this
> error:
> http://i.imgur.com/FgeF9c9.jpg
Several meta-issues.
Firstly, your subject line talks about 'decimal' again. You're
actually working with floats; Python has a qui
nction. I am not using it, but I am
keeping it in.
row2 is row4 with:
(math.floor(number * 100) / 100, ',.2f')
taken out leaving',.2f'
For some reason, it is not working. If I try to use row2 I get this
error:
http://i.imgur.com/FgeF9c9.jpg
Most of my learning is trial and
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> I love this list. We can go off on a ridiculously long tangent, simply
>> because I said that it's only *usually* best to put imports at the top
>> of the file. We all agree that it normally is indeed best to hoi
Chris Angelico wrote:
> I love this list. We can go off on a ridiculously long tangent, simply
> because I said that it's only *usually* best to put imports at the top
> of the file. We all agree that it normally is indeed best to hoist
> them, and here we are, arguing over measurement methods on
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> Joshua Landau wrote:
>
>
> python -c "import sys; print('math' in sys.modules)"
>> False
>>
>> An even easier check:
>>
> python -c "import time; a = time.time(); import math; b = time.time();
> print(b-a)"
>> 0.000601291656494
Joshua Landau wrote:
python -c "import sys; print('math' in sys.modules)"
> False
>
> An even easier check:
>
python -c "import time; a = time.time(); import math; b = time.time();
print(b-a)"
> 0.0006012916564941406
>
python -c "import math, time; a = time.time(); import m
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:24:19 -0700, Larry Hudson
wrote:
>On 08/24/2014 08:12 AM, Seymore4Head wrote:
>[snip]
>> I almost moved, but I was looking at the print out again for this one:
>> print('%3d $%-13.2f $%-14.2f' % (count, payment, balance))
>>
>> I can't understand why the $%-13.2f is pushed
On 08/24/2014 08:12 AM, Seymore4Head wrote:
[snip]
I almost moved, but I was looking at the print out again for this one:
print('%3d $%-13.2f $%-14.2f' % (count, payment, balance))
I can't understand why the $%-13.2f is pushed against the first
column, but the $%-14.2f is not. It seems like the
On 24 August 2014 20:40, Ian Kelly wrote:
> That's the same check I posted, just using the in operator instead of a
> straight lookup and raising an error.
I think I need to take a break from the internet. This is the second
time in as many threads that I've responded with what I'm commenting
on.
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
>
> On 24 August 2014 20:25, Joshua Landau wrote:
> > On 24 August 2014 20:19, Ian Kelly wrote:
> >> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Ian Kelly
wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Landau
wrote:
> >>> > Is math not already i
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
> On 24 August 2014 20:19, Ian Kelly wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Ian Kelly
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Landau
> wrote:
> >> > Is math not already imported by start-up?
> >>
> >> Why would it be
On 24 August 2014 20:25, Joshua Landau wrote:
> On 24 August 2014 20:19, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
>>> > Is math not already imported by start-up?
>
> I don't mean into the global namespace, bu
On 24 August 2014 20:19, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
>> > Is math not already imported by start-up?
>>
>> Why would it be?
>
> It's easy to check, by the way:
>
> $ python -c "import sys; print(s
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
> > Is math not already imported by start-up?
>
> Why would it be?
It's easy to check, by the way:
$ python -c "import sys; print(sys.modules['math'])"
Traceback (most recent call last):
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Joshua Landau wrote:
> Is math not already imported by start-up?
Why would it be?
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 23 August 2014 23:53, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Joshua Landau wrote:
>> On 23 August 2014 23:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> I'd say "never" is too strong (there are times when it's right to put
>>> an import inside a function), but yes, in this case it should rea
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 00:04:29 -0700, Larry Hudson
wrote:
>On 08/23/2014 02:13 PM, Seymore4Head wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 13:47:20 -0400, Seymore4Head
>>
>> I found this function that I will be saving for later.
>> def make_it_money(number):
>> import math
>> return '$' + str(format(m
lance, 2
>
>print('%3d %13s %14s' % (count, '$' + str(round(payment, 2)), '$' +
>str(round(balance, 2
>
Thanks for sharing these. I tried every single one.
The first two you gave didn't format correctly (as you noted) but it
seems like they sho
On 08/23/2014 02:13 PM, Seymore4Head wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 13:47:20 -0400, Seymore4Head
I found this function that I will be saving for later.
def make_it_money(number):
import math
return '$' + str(format(math.floor(number * 100) / 100, ',.2f'))
(I still need more practice to fi
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Joshua Landau wrote:
> On 23 August 2014 23:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Joshua Landau wrote:
>>> So for one "import math" should never go inside a function; you should
>>> hoist it to the top of the file with all the other import
On 23 August 2014 23:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Joshua Landau wrote:
>> So for one "import math" should never go inside a function; you should
>> hoist it to the top of the file with all the other imports.
>
> I'd say "never" is too strong (there are times when i
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Joshua Landau wrote:
> So for one "import math" should never go inside a function; you should
> hoist it to the top of the file with all the other imports.
I'd say "never" is too strong (there are times when it's right to put
an import inside a function), but yes,
tually a good read, although I don't doubt
>there are even better resources somewhere:
>
>https://docs.python.org/3/library/decimal.html
>
>Note that you probably also want to use the decimal module, seeing as
>it's good at storing decimals.
>
>Final
On 23 August 2014 22:13, Seymore4Head wrote:
> def make_it_money(number):
> import math
> return '
> + str(format(math.floor(number * 100) / 100, ',.2f'))
So for one "import math" should never go inside a function; you should
hoist it to the top of the file with all the other imports.
Yo
esources somewhere:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/decimal.html
Note that you probably also want to use the decimal module, seeing as
it's good at storing decimals.
Finally, look at "moneyfmt" in the decimal docs:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/decimal.html#recipes
--
https://
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 13:47:20 -0400, Seymore4Head
wrote:
>I am trying to do this example:
>http://openbookproject.net/pybiblio/practice/wilson/loan.php
>The instructions warn that floating point math can get messy so I
>cheated a little bit to get me going.
>
>I made my program work by using numbe
useful for display, but you would think that there
would be enough demand for a built in set of instructions that handle
money calculations accurately.
The joys of floating point numbers (you're calling them decimals) on
computers. Search the archives of this list and you'll fin
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:24:41 +0100, Mark Lawrence
wrote:
>On 23/08/2014 20:07, Seymore4Head wrote:
>>
>> Funny, I though using the web would be better than a book. I don't
>> think so anymore. Using the web, it is hard to find square one
>> tutorial text.
>>
>
>Try typing something like "python
On 23/08/2014 20:07, Seymore4Head wrote:
Funny, I though using the web would be better than a book. I don't
think so anymore. Using the web, it is hard to find square one
tutorial text.
Try typing something like "python string formatting tutorial" into your
favourite search engine and you'
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Seymore4Head
wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 14:21:03 -0400, Joel Goldstick
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Seymore4Head
>> wrote:
>>> I am trying to do this example:
>>> http://openbookproject.net/pybiblio/practice/wilson/loan.php
>>> The instructions
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 14:21:03 -0400, Joel Goldstick
wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Seymore4Head
> wrote:
>> I am trying to do this example:
>> http://openbookproject.net/pybiblio/practice/wilson/loan.php
>> The instructions warn that floating point math can get messy so I
>> cheated a li
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Seymore4Head
wrote:
> I am trying to do this example:
> http://openbookproject.net/pybiblio/practice/wilson/loan.php
> The instructions warn that floating point math can get messy so I
> cheated a little bit to get me going.
>
> I made my program work by using numb
I am trying to do this example:
http://openbookproject.net/pybiblio/practice/wilson/loan.php
The instructions warn that floating point math can get messy so I
cheated a little bit to get me going.
I made my program work by using numbers that wouldn't get messy.
Instead of using 6% interest I used
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:20:18 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
>> This isn't a Python question. If you take a look at the csv file that
>> you download from Yahoo, you will see that it only contains 2 digits of
>> precision. There's no way to ma
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:20:18 -0600, Ian Kelly wrote:
> This isn't a Python question. If you take a look at the csv file that
> you download from Yahoo, you will see that it only contains 2 digits of
> precision. There's no way to make Python print out 4 digits of
> precision when it is only prov
(int(end_date[0:4])) + \
'g=d&' + \
'a=%s&' % str(int(start_date[4:6]) - 1) + \
'b=%s&' % str(int(start_date[6:8])) + \
'c=%s&' % str(int(start_date[0:4])) + \
'ignore=.csv'
days = urlli
(int(end_date[0:4])) + \
'g=d&' + \
'a=%s&' % str(int(start_date[4:6]) - 1) + \
'b=%s&' % str(int(start_date[6:8])) + \
'c=%s&' % str(int(start_date[0:4])) + \
'ignore=.csv'
days = urlli
> 'f=%s&' % str(int(end_date[0:4])) + \
> 'g=d&' + \
> 'a=%s&' % str(int(start_date[4:6]) - 1) + \
> 'b=%s&' % str(int(start_date[6:8])) + \
> 'c=%s&' % str(int(sta
'a=%s&' % str(int(start_date[4:6]) - 1) + \
'b=%s&' % str(int(start_date[6:8])) + \
'c=%s&' % str(int(start_date[0:4])) + \
'ignore=.csv'
days = urllib.urlopen(url).readlines()
data = [day[:-2].split(',
Hello, Chris!
Thanks for your really quick reply! It works!
On 1 April 2010 12:14, Chris Rebert wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Lacrima wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > I need to format a decimal (floating point) number in the following
> > way:
> > 10 results in '10'
> > 10.5 results in '1
Hi Maxim,
If it's the trailing zeroes you're concerned about, here's a work-around:
>>> ('%.2f' % 10.5678).rstrip('0')
'10.57
I'm sure there are better solutions. But this one works for your need,
right?
Cheers,'
Ching-Yun Xavier Ho, Technical Artist
Contact Information
Mobile: (+61) 04 3335
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:08 AM, Lacrima wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I need to format a decimal (floating point) number in the following
> way:
> 10 results in '10'
> 10.5 results in '10.5'
> 10.50 results in '10.5'
> 10.5678 results in 10.57
>
> How can I achieve this using standard Python string formatti
Hello!
I need to format a decimal (floating point) number in the following
way:
10 results in '10'
10.5 results in '10.5'
10.50 results in '10.5'
10.5678 results in 10.57
How can I achieve this using standard Python string formatting
operations?
Something like '%.2f' works almost as expected:
>>>
On Mar 30, 1:52 pm, MRAB wrote:
> John Nagle wrote:
> > aditya wrote:
> >> On Mar 30, 10:49 am, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> >>> On Mar 30, 8:13 am, aditya wrote:
>
> To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
> this:
> int('11',2) # returns 3
> But dec
Chris
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:14 AM, John Nagle wrote:
> aditya wrote:
>
>> On Mar 30, 10:49 am, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 30, 8:13 am, aditya wrote:
>>>
>>> To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
this:
int('11',2) # returns 3
But d
John Nagle wrote:
aditya wrote:
On Mar 30, 10:49 am, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Mar 30, 8:13 am, aditya wrote:
To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
this:
int('11',2) # returns 3
But decimal binary numbers throw a ValueError:
int('1.1',2) # should return 1.5,
On 2010-03-30, John Nagle wrote:
> Hex floats are useful because you can get a string representation of
> the exact value of a binary floating point number. It should always
> be the case that
>
>float.fromhex(float.hex(x)) == x
Until you try running your program on a machine that repre
On Mar 30, 10:49 am, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> On Mar 30, 8:13 am, aditya wrote:
>
> > To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
> > this:
>
> > int('11',2) # returns 3
>
> > But decimal binary numbers throw a ValueError:
>
> > int('1.1',2) # should return 1.5, throws e
aditya wrote:
On Mar 30, 10:49 am, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
On Mar 30, 8:13 am, aditya wrote:
To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
this:
int('11',2) # returns 3
But decimal binary numbers throw a ValueError:
int('1.1',2) # should return 1.5, throws error instea
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:28:50 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:
> On Mar 30, 10:13 am, aditya wrote:
>> To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
>> this:
>>
>> int('11',2) # returns 3
>>
>> But decimal binary numbers throw a ValueError:
>>
>> int('1.1',2) # should return 1.5,
On Mar 30, 10:49 am, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
> On Mar 30, 8:13 am, aditya wrote:
>
> > To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
> > this:
>
> > int('11',2) # returns 3
>
> > But decimal binary numbers throw a ValueError:
>
> > int('1.1',2) # should return 1.5, throws e
On Mar 30, 10:37 am, Benjamin Kaplan wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:13 AM, aditya wrote:
> > To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
> > this:
>
> > int('11',2) # returns 3
>
> > But decimal binary numbers throw a ValueError:
>
> > int('1.1',2) # should return 1.5
aditya wrote:
To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
this:
int('11',2) # returns 3
But decimal binary numbers throw a ValueError:
int('1.1',2) # should return 1.5, throws error instead.
Is this by design? It seems to me that this is not the correct
behavior.
int
Doh!
Well the problem is that int's are integers. So yeah, you can't even do
that with normal value "int ('2.1')" will also throw an error. And
floats don't support radix conversion, because no-one really writes
numbers that way. (At least computer programmers...)
On 3/30/2010 11:43 AM, Shash
On Mar 30, 8:13 am, aditya wrote:
> To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
> this:
>
> int('11',2) # returns 3
>
> But decimal binary numbers throw a ValueError:
>
> int('1.1',2) # should return 1.5, throws error instead.
>
> Is this by design? It seems to me that this
The conversion is not supported for decimal integers AFAIK, however
'0b123.456' is always valid. I guess you can always get a decimal number
convertor onto Python-recipes
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
> On 3/30/2010 11:13 AM, aditya wrote:
> > To get the decimal represent
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:13 AM, aditya wrote:
> To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
> this:
>
> int('11',2) # returns 3
>
> But decimal binary numbers throw a ValueError:
>
> int('1.1',2) # should return 1.5, throws error instead.
>
> Is this by design? It seems t
On 3/30/2010 11:13 AM, aditya wrote:
> To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
> this:
>
> int('11',2) # returns 3
>
> But decimal binary numbers throw a ValueError:
>
> int('1.1',2) # should return 1.5, throws error instead.
>
> Is this by design? It seems to me tha
On Mar 30, 10:13 am, aditya wrote:
> To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
> this:
>
> int('11',2) # returns 3
>
> But decimal binary numbers throw a ValueError:
>
> int('1.1',2) # should return 1.5, throws error instead.
>
> Is this by design? It seems to me that thi
decimal binary number is not included AFAIK
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:43 PM, aditya wrote:
> To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
> this:
>
> int('11',2) # returns 3
>
> But decimal binary numbers throw a ValueError:
>
> int('1.1',2) # should return 1.5, throws err
To get the decimal representation of a binary number, I can just do
this:
int('11',2) # returns 3
But decimal binary numbers throw a ValueError:
int('1.1',2) # should return 1.5, throws error instead.
Is this by design? It seems to me that this is not the correct
behavior.
- Aditya
--
http://
Decimal has good enough API and we need to follow it as lot of our
code already operates with Decimal.
Maybe with different Context and exception types and limited subset of
operations - but switching should be not very hard.
Decimal arithmetic is good for as. We need to support several types
like
On Sep 16, 1:35 am, Andrew Svetlov wrote:
> It only reflects the fact what comp.lang.python replicated by several
> web sites.
> Unfortunately looks like there are no link to library implements that :
> (
A few random thoughts:
If you just want fixed-precision decimal, there may be simpler
solut
but found nothing.
> >> gmpy is interesting project, but supported types is not exactly what
> >> we need - rationals and big floats is not decimals in fixed point
> >> notation.
> >> My team discussed about making own python binding of decNumber - but
> >>
interesting project, but supported types is not exactly what
we need - rationals and big floats is not decimals in fixed point
notation.
My team discussed about making own python binding of decNumber - but
before we start this task I like to ask python community: is there
existing implementation? I
found nothing.
> gmpy is interesting project, but supported types is not exactly what
> we need - rationals and big floats is not decimals in fixed point
> notation.
> My team discussed about making own python binding of decNumber - but
> before we start this task I like to ask python commu
we need - rationals and big floats is not decimals in fixed point
notation.
My team discussed about making own python binding of decNumber - but
before we start this task I like to ask python community: is there
existing implementation? I don't want to invent the wheel again.
Thanks.
--
http:/
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
