On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 11/2/2010 6:11 AM, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>
> 1.1 .hex()
>
'0x1.1999ap+0'
>>
>> Here it is immediately obvious that the final digit of the infinite
>> sequence "1.1999..." is rounded from 9 to a. Printing the number with
>>
On 11/2/2010 6:11 AM, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
1.1 .hex()
'0x1.1999ap+0'
Here it is immediately obvious that the final digit of the infinite
sequence "1.1999..." is rounded from 9 to a. Printing the number with
any more digits would just reveal zeros, as expected.
Does anyone know why Py
Ken Watford writes:
> 1.1 .as_integer_ratio()
>> (2476979795053773, 2251799813685248)
>
> Handy, but if you need the exact representation, my preference is
> float.hex, which seems to be the same as C99's %a format.
[...]
> Granted, it's not as easy for humans to interpret, but it's useful fo
In message <87r5f55qj5@xemacs.org>, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Python has a little-known but very instructive method for determining the
> makeup of a float:
>
1.1 .as_integer_ratio()
> (2476979795053773, 2251799813685248)
Only available in 2.6 or later. Are we already talking as though 2.5
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Bj Raz wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:42 AM, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>
> > Chris Rebert writes:
> >
> >> (2) The underlying double-precision floating-point number only has ~16
> >> decimal digits of precision, so it's pointless to print out "further"
> >> digits.
> >
On Nov 1, 2010, at 5:42 AM, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Chris Rebert writes:
>
>> (2) The underlying double-precision floating-point number only has ~16
>> decimal digits of precision, so it's pointless to print out "further"
>> digits.
>
> A digression which has nothing to do with Raj's desire for
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
>
> Printing out further digits (without quotes) is not pointless if you
> want to find out the exact representation of your number in python's
> floating point, for educational purposes or otherwise. Python has a
> little-known but very instru
Chris Rebert writes:
> (2) The underlying double-precision floating-point number only has ~16
> decimal digits of precision, so it's pointless to print out "further"
> digits.
A digression which has nothing to do with Raj's desire for "better
accuracy"...
Printing out further digits (without qu
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Bj Raz wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Chris Rebert wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Bj Raz wrote:
>>> > I am working with differential equations of the higher roots of
>>> > negative
>>> > one. (dividing enormous numbers into other enormou
Simply out of curiosity is there a way to force python to print more then 16
places from the decimal? For better accuracy.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Bj Raz wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Chris Rebert wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Bj Raz wrote:
>> > I am work
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Chris Rebert wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Bj Raz wrote:
> > I am working with differential equations of the higher roots of negative
> > one. (dividing enormous numbers into other enormous numbers to come out
> with
> > very reasonable numbers).
> >
On 2010-10-30 00:29 , Bj Raz wrote:
Thank you Robert for the clarification. Since I'm an amateur programmer, could
you please give me a sample of how I would do it.
Chris Rebert just showed you.
I'll take some time to study
arrays as well, and how to write them, I know of lists, and tuples,
Thank you Robert for the clarification. Since I'm an amateur programmer,
could you please give me a sample of how I would do it. I'll take some time
to study arrays as well, and how to write them, I know of lists, and tuples,
and dictionaries; from "Dive into Python". but I am very green around t
On 10/29/10 12:02 AM, Chris Rebert wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Bj Raz wrote:
I am working with differential equations of the higher roots of negative
one. (dividing enormous numbers into other enormous numbers to come out with
very reasonable numbers).
I am mixing this in to a scrip
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Bj Raz wrote:
> I am working with differential equations of the higher roots of negative
> one. (dividing enormous numbers into other enormous numbers to come out with
> very reasonable numbers).
> I am mixing this in to a script for Maya (the final output is graph
On 29 October 2010 14:41, Bj Raz wrote:
>
> Since Python can't call functions, I would like to know if there is a work
> around.
>
Python can't call functions? I'm sorry, but I may have misunderstood what
you are trying to say.
I'm not familiar with the mathematical definition of factorial, but
16 matches
Mail list logo
