Re^3: Simple calculation.

Hint: Retaining .05 precision in tick marks distributed over a range of 900+ doesn't make much sense.

Makes perfect sense to me. I just thought that getting 8.721 as max is strange when the real max is 8.672. I actually thought your 'not so nice!' refers to that. I don't know how to produce "aethetically pleasing" numbers, sorry.

Comment on Re^3: Simple calculation.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Simple calculation. by Anonymous Monk on May 09, 2015 at 12:46 UTC
Hmmm, BUK, you need approximately the number of ticks specified or the precise number? You said "Here, by inspection, we can conclude that the 'best' tick marks would probably be 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, 0.08, 0.09. But that's only 8 ticks..." Is 8 ticks alright or do you need exactly 10? I was thinking about that and it's actually possible to produce 0.02, 0.03 .. 0.09 (and other "pretty" numbers like that), but I find your requirements not very clear, to be honest.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Simple calculation.
by Anonymous Monk on May 09, 2015 at 12:46 UTC

"Here, by inspection, we can conclude that the 'best' tick marks would probably be 0.02, 0.03, 0.04, 0.05, 0.06, 0.07, 0.08, 0.09. But that's only 8 ticks..."

[reply]