[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: infinities reformulated

To: bear@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: infinities reformulated
From: Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:23:26 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0506040915430.19280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (message from bear on Sat, 4 Jun 2005 09:42:21 -0700 (PDT))
References: <20050531071658.EC10C1167@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050531234805.0EC7F1B77B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <874qcgg4uf.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050602161228.B3E3D1B77B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0506040915430.19280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 | Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2005 09:42:21 -0700 (PDT)
 | From: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx>
 | 
 | For heavy math work, I want to be able to specify the precision
 | used, in one of several ways; For example, by saying
 | 
 | (with-inexact-precision 128
 |   ...
 |   (sqrt 2)
 |   ...)
 | 
 | or
 | 
 |   (sqrt 2 :precision 128)
 | 
 | or (without keywords)
 | 
 |   (sqrt 2 128)
 | 
 | or something.

Can you give an example of a calculation where you expect that
choosing a reduced precision will reap a large benefit?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: infinities reformulated
  - From: bear

References:
- Re: infinities reformulated
  - From: Chongkai Zhu
- Re: infinities reformulated
  - From: Aubrey Jaffer
- Re: infinities reformulated
  - From: Thomas Bushnell BSG
- Re: infinities reformulated
  - From: Aubrey Jaffer
- Re: infinities reformulated
  - From: bear

Prev by Date: Re: string->number
Next by Date: LIMIT recommendations
Previous by thread: Re: infinities reformulated
Next by thread: Re: infinities reformulated
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread