Matt Kettler wrote:
> Loren Wilton wrote:
>
>>> 3 decimal places, not 3 significant digits.
>>>
>>> ie: 10.001 has 5 significant digits, but 3 decimal places.
>>>
>>> AFAIK there are no SA rules with scores more exact than 3 decimal places.
>>>
>>> So, no.. you would not have any rounding issues at that point.
>>>
>>>
>> Yes you would, or at least could. .001 is not an exact binary fraction, so
>> trails out to lots more bits than there are in a double. So you can still
>> get decimal fractions that won't necessarily add up in binary even at 3
>> digits. (And might seem to be even worse if it were displayed at 4 digits.)
>>
>> SA would have to maintain all scores in scaled integers to get exact
>> results.
>>
>>
> Erm.. Loren.. While that may be true of binary fractions, nobody uses
> binary fractions.
>
> In IEEE floating point format (single precision or otherwise), 0.001 has
> an exact binary representation.
>
> Very few things in this world use binary fractions. Standard floating
> point numbers on computers is one of them.
>
>
Wait.. Nevermind.. Scratch All that.. brain not thinking clearly at 4am
