3 ms·
You're reading something into the title that isn't there. The author says "7 bits aren't enough for 2-digit accuracy" and you're reading it as "7 bits aren't en
by icodestuff 12y ago
You're reading something into the title that isn't there. The author says "7 bits aren't enough for 2-digit accuracy" and you're reading it as "7 bits aren't enough to represent 2-digit numbers." The post is about converting base 10 floating point numbers (with 2 digits accuracy) to base 2 floating point numbers and back, not representation of integers.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- wongarsu 12y agoI don't think he's reading too much into the title. He equally well showed that it's possible to encode 2 base-10 digits of accuracy in base-2 fixed point numbers and back. Nowhere does the title mention floating point numbers, which is just one arbitrary (but popular) format among a number of possibilities to encode numbers with chosen accuracy.
- icodestuff 12y agoI find myself completely unable to care that "floating point" is not in the title, particularly since it _is_ in the very first sentence.
- logicallee 12y agofair enough; maybe it's too far outside my area of expertise. OTOH I never expect round-trip conversions to be perfect and couldn't care less whether there are small errors, and would use a different representation if I did.