3 ms·
I wish you had kept reading. In the end, you nitpicked about precisely the thing which the author ended up explaining. The point about using infinite memory to
by zaroth 7y ago
I wish you had kept reading. In the end, you nitpicked about precisely the thing which the author ended up explaining.
The point about using infinite memory to store an irrational number is just a rhetorical device / presentation style to keep the novice reader engaged, and following along. And then you say, "Next we will explain how to solve this impossibility...," and such.
It's a good technique for writing, and presenting, but doesn't work if your audience already knows where you're going and gets impatient with you!
- 333c 7y agoI did keep reading the article, as I say in my edit. I differ from you in my interpretation of this facet of the essay. To me, it reads as internal contradiction — the author says that it is impossible to represent 1/120 in memory and then goes on to describe a strategy for doing just that. The author does not present this conflict as "it may seem impossible…" but rather as "is is impossible." That's an inaccuracy, not a writing technique.
- yaccz 7y agoThe claim is only missing a qualification that the impossibility exists within the framework of ieee 754. It can be easily inferred from context and it is important to note because thats what the major CPU architectures use to store native floating point numbers. Therefore, the point is, we need a non-native (wrt the cpu) way to store and calculate with irrationals and some rationals if mathematical precision is required.
- scarejunba 7y agoMate, I mean this with the best of intentions: please reflect on your requirement for exactness and consider whether it serves you well. I did so with mine and I concluded it did not. Perhaps you will conclude differently. Perhaps the same. In either case, I think you will find it worthwhile.
- slimscsi 7y agoThank you.