This got revived by a long-standing bug in Mail.app on Mac: If you sort mails
newest-last, it may unpredictably scroll back, often by several years. If you
happen to have a large mailbox with some old unread mails in it, say from a
mailing list, and don't pay attention to the date
-pd
> O
What an impressively zombified thread. Though wondering how 53 bits were
supposed to fit into 32 might just warrant revivification.
--
Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity.
On July 20, 2017 5:33:34 AM PDT, peter dalgaard wrote:
>
>> On 10 Jan 2013, at 15:56 , S Ellison wrote:
>>
>>
>
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 14:33 +0200, peter dalgaard wrote:
> > On 10 Jan 2013, at 15:56 , S Ellison wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> I am working with large numbers and identified that R looses
> >> precision for such high numbers.
> > Yes. R uses standard 32-bit double precision.
>
>
> Well, for large
> On 10 Jan 2013, at 15:56 , S Ellison wrote:
>
>
>
>> I am working with large numbers and identified that R looses
>> precision for such high numbers.
> Yes. R uses standard 32-bit double precision.
Well, for large values of 32... such as 64.
--
Peter Dalgaard, Professor,
Center for Stat
FAQ 7.31
On Thursday, January 10, 2013, Stephan Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am working with large numbers and identified that R looses precision
> for such high numbers.
>
> The precision is lost exactly when the number is equal or larger than 53
> bits. See the following output which shows that t
On 13-01-10 6:01 AM, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Hi,
I am working with large numbers and identified that R looses precision
for such high numbers.
The precision is lost exactly when the number is equal or larger than 53
bits. See the following output which shows that the numbers below 53 bit
have pr
> I am working with large numbers and identified that R looses
> precision for such high numbers.
Yes. R uses standard 32-bit double precision. See ?double in your R help
system. And welcome to finite precision arithmetic, which is a very widely
known issue in digital comuting ever since it w
Perhaps here?: https://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/rmpfr/
M
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Stephan Mueller
wrote:
>
>
> I am working with large numbers and identified that R looses precision
> for such high numbers.
>
> The precision is lost exactly when the number is equal or larger than
Hi,
I am working with large numbers and identified that R looses precision
for such high numbers.
The precision is lost exactly when the number is equal or larger than 53
bits. See the following output which shows that the numbers below 53 bit
have proper precision:
> 2^53
[1] 9007199254740992
>
Hi,
I am working with large numbers and identified that R looses precision
for such high numbers.
The precision is lost exactly when the number is equal or larger than 53
bits. See the following output which shows that the numbers below 53 bit
have proper precision:
> 2^53
[1] 9007199254740992
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
