Re^5: Need more precision.

0.00000000000000002025 which becomes 0.0000000000000000 with doubles.

Thinking on this more, I wonder if you are really having string-ification problem. Digits could be getting lost in that process. The value in normalized notation is 2.025 * 10^-17, which is well within the capabilities of doubles, which use double-precision floating-point format

Update: Fixed a typo.

Comment on Re^5: Need more precision. Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Need more precision. by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jun 14, 2015 at 13:18 UTC
I came back to look at your other post above, and noticed this one that I somehow missed before. The value in normalized notation is 2.025 10^-17, which is well within the capabilities of doubles,* You're right of course, it is. Until you add it to a value in the range -1.xe0 .. 1.xe0; then it disappears. With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked	[reply]
Re^7: Need more precision. by RonW (Parson) on Jun 15, 2015 at 18:31 UTC
Until you add it to a value in the range -1.xe0 .. 1.xe0; then it disappears. Right. I had forgotten the addition from your original post. I'm thinking that cascading 3 or 4 32 bit integers (as I demonstrated in an earlier post) to create 96 or 128 bit integers will get you what you are looking for.	[reply]