Re^6: Need more precision.

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

Comment on Re^6: Need more precision.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]