3 ms·

How is this issue unique to strings? Nobody can look at a random graph and know what it stands for either. Otherwise there would be no need for labeled axes. Yo

by tpeo 9y ago

How is this issue unique to strings? Nobody can look at a random graph and know what it stands for either. Otherwise there would be no need for labeled axes. You still need to explain what is it that we're looking at This isn't to say that visualizations aren't useful, of course.

coldtea 9y ago
>How is this issue unique to strings? Who said anything about strings? >Nobody can look at a random graph and know what it stands for either. Well, the parent wrote: "is (-1)^S 1.M 2^(E-127) so bad that it required a whole blog post to explain it?". And the answer is, yes it is. We can look at y = 2*x + 5 and understand it immediately. Sums, limits, and lots of other equations too. Floating point though is an encoding/representation scheme, so it needs more than the mere equation to be understood. I don't just want to know I replace three numbers and do a calculation, I need to know what these numbers are supposed to represent.
- tpeo 9y ago
  I've mentioned strings, and so did you now. What I don't understand is what's supposed to be uniquely puzzling about strings. Maybe I'm under the influence of the submission, because the guy said he had an allergy for notation. But even after putting a floating point expression in analogy with some geometrical constructs, the whole thing could still be a model of alien gravity, because neither the expression nor the geometric figures carry any inherent meaning in themselves. The only reason why we know that it is in fact just a pure representation of how to approximate real numbers is because the post itself tells us so.
  - chrisoverzero 9y ago
    “Who said anything about {x}?” is an idiomatic equivalent to “Why did you bring up {x} unprompted?” I think you're trying to say that unlabeled formulas are no better or worse than unlabeled graphs and the like, but calling a formula a “string” is muddling it up. (If that is what you meant.) Because we're talking about floating-point data types, people are likely to think of the string data type.

by tpeo 9y ago

coldtea 9y ago

>How is this issue unique to strings? Who said anything about strings? >Nobody can look at a random graph and know what it stands for either. Well, the parent wrote: "is (-1)^S 1.M 2^(E-127) so bad that it required a whole blog post to explain it?". And the answer is, yes it is. We can look at y = 2*x + 5 and understand it immediately. Sums, limits, and lots of other equations too. Floating point though is an encoding/representation scheme, so it needs more than the mere equation to be understood. I don't just want to know I replace three numbers and do a calculation, I need to know what these numbers are supposed to represent.

tpeo 9y ago
I've mentioned strings, and so did you now. What I don't understand is what's supposed to be uniquely puzzling about strings. Maybe I'm under the influence of the submission, because the guy said he had an allergy for notation. But even after putting a floating point expression in analogy with some geometrical constructs, the whole thing could still be a model of alien gravity, because neither the expression nor the geometric figures carry any inherent meaning in themselves. The only reason why we know that it is in fact just a pure representation of how to approximate real numbers is because the post itself tells us so.
- chrisoverzero 9y ago
  “Who said anything about {x}?” is an idiomatic equivalent to “Why did you bring up {x} unprompted?” I think you're trying to say that unlabeled formulas are no better or worse than unlabeled graphs and the like, but calling a formula a “string” is muddling it up. (If that is what you meant.) Because we're talking about floating-point data types, people are likely to think of the string data type.