Re: Heat_Index calculation in my C program; question about formula
David Thompson <dave.thompson2 @verizon.netwri tes:
I think Richard's point is that though there are limits for C
implementations , there is no upper limit *in mathematics* for
scientific notation.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
David Thompson <dave.thompson2 @verizon.netwri tes:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:56:48 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:
>
>
Sorry, I misthought that. The number of placeholder zeroes can indeed
be large (but finite); the number of _signficant_ digits is small.
<rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:
>
>David Thompson said:
>>
>>
>[scientific notation]
>>
>>
>I had no idea there was an upper limit. What is that limit?
>>
><snip>
>>
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 05:42:52 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:
<rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:
>[scientific notation]
>>
>No, that's fine - it's just a way of expressing numbers in a consistent
>format. The idea is that any (real) number that can be expressed in a
>finite number of decimals can also be expressed in this way:
>>
Not just finite but small,
>format. The idea is that any (real) number that can be expressed in a
>finite number of decimals can also be expressed in this way:
>>
Not just finite but small,
>I had no idea there was an upper limit. What is that limit?
>>
><snip>
Sorry, I misthought that. The number of placeholder zeroes can indeed
be large (but finite); the number of _signficant_ digits is small.
implementations , there is no upper limit *in mathematics* for
scientific notation.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Comment