| Revision as of 00:02, 20 February 2015 editJohnuniq (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators86,662 edits rv: please comment on content only; article talk pages are not places to comment on editors← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:31, 20 February 2015 edit undoJavalenok (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users799 edits Recovering Vincent Lefèvre edit discussion, removed due to "responding to tone rule", which is unacceptable in wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Javalenok#Floating_pointNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| :Done. Good catch! --] (]) 07:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | :Done. Good catch! --] (]) 07:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Vincent Lefèvre Crap == | |||
| simple illustration (it was asked above), which says that floating the point is equivalent to choosing scale (''micro''- vs. ''kilo''- vs. ''giga''-), which you do every day, with opposite statement "floating point allows to measure both astronomical and atomic scales using single measurement unit". You do not measure galactic distances with millimetres. Vincent Lefèvre is idiot. He also eliminates further illustration which reminded that scale selection corresponds to discarding least significant bits and ten-bit exponent can denote discarding of hundreds of bits of "single unit of measurement" (when you pass from mm to light years you discard hundreds of least significant digits in fact and, thus, pass, to a different unit), which is real idea behind introducing the floating point (exponent), disliked by Vincent Lefèvre. It is difficult to say what Vincent had in mind in his "clarification" edit. I cannot find any sense in it. Did he just wanted to repeat the that trivial idea that fp enables huge range one more time? Why should this take over much more insightful illustration, which explains much more, the idea and mechanics which stand behind the trick and provided the sense of compression achieved. Why to remove the illustrative material just to repeat the truism that you've seen above? Do you want to say that technical material does not need the gentle introduction/overview? --] (]) 18:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:31, 20 February 2015
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Floating-point arithmetic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Computing: CompSci B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives | |||||
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Error in diagram
The image "Float mantissa exponent.png" erroneously shows that 10e-4 is the exponent, while the exponent actually is only -4 and the base is 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.85.65.228 (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
needs simpler overview
put it this way, I'm an IT guy and I can't understand this article, there need to be a much simpler summery for non tech people, using simple English. Right now every other word is another tech term I don't fully understand. -- thanks, Misplaced Pages Lover & Supporter
- It seems that Mfwitten removed that simple overview. Perhaps, to enforce the WP:ROWN. He called this "streamlining". I have recovered mine affair, additionally reducing the 'bits part'. Yet, I am sure, IT department will be happy now. --Javalenok (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Failure at Dhahran - Loss of significance or clock drift
This article states in section http://en.wikipedia.org/Floating_point#Incidents that the Failure at Dhahran was caused by Loss of significance. However, the article "MIM-104 Patriot" makes it sound like it was rather simply clock drift. This should be cleared up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.218.209 (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. It isn't a loss of significance as defined by Loss of significance. It is an accumulation of rounding errors (not compensating each other) due to the fact that 1/10 was represented in binary (with a low precision for its usage). In a loss of significance, the relative error increases while the absolute error remains (almost) the same. Here, it is the opposite: the relative error remains (almost) the same, but the absolute error (which is what matters here) increases. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
John McLaughlin's Album
Should there be a link to John McLaughlin's album at the top in case someone was trying to go there but went here?2602:306:C591:4D0:AD55:E334:4141:98FA (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Good catch! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Vincent Lefèvre Crap
He insistently replaces simple illustration (it was asked above), which says that floating the point is equivalent to choosing scale (micro- vs. kilo- vs. giga-), which you do every day, with opposite statement "floating point allows to measure both astronomical and atomic scales using single measurement unit". You do not measure galactic distances with millimetres. Vincent Lefèvre is idiot. He also eliminates further illustration which reminded that scale selection corresponds to discarding least significant bits and ten-bit exponent can denote discarding of hundreds of bits of "single unit of measurement" (when you pass from mm to light years you discard hundreds of least significant digits in fact and, thus, pass, to a different unit), which is real idea behind introducing the floating point (exponent), disliked by Vincent Lefèvre. It is difficult to say what Vincent had in mind in his "clarification" edit. I cannot find any sense in it. Did he just wanted to repeat the that trivial idea that fp enables huge range one more time? Why should this take over much more insightful illustration, which explains much more, the idea and mechanics which stand behind the trick and provided the sense of compression achieved. Why to remove the illustrative material just to repeat the truism that you've seen above? Do you want to say that technical material does not need the gentle introduction/overview? --Javalenok (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Categories: