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

*To*: srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: inexactness vs. exactness*From*: Bradley Lucier <lucier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 23:13:08 -0500*Cc*: Bradley Lucier <lucier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Delivered-to*: srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <9f18b20841165beed91bac5cb29c3817@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*References*: <y9ly87s4ud7.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050731023754.BBC9F1B77B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0507302308240.6586@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20050807172151.7647E1B77B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <9f18b20841165beed91bac5cb29c3817@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Aug 7, 2005, at 10:34 PM, Bradley Lucier wrote:

On Aug 7, 2005, at 12:21 PM, Aubrey Jaffer wrote:There is a third way: report a violation of an implementation restriction when trying to return numbers with more than, say, 16000 bits. Practical calculation on numbers larger than that would need FFT multiplication and other number-theoretic algorithms, which is a lot of hair to support execution of simple programming errors.If you're saying that any computations that need more than 16,000bits, then I'd point you to computational number theorists and otherswho use much bigger numbers. It would be good if these problems couldbe done practically in Scheme.

Brad

**References**:**Re: inexactness vs. exactness***From:*William D Clinger

**Re: inexactness vs. exactness***From:*Aubrey Jaffer

**Re: inexactness vs. exactness***From:*bear

**Re: inexactness vs. exactness***From:*Aubrey Jaffer

**Re: inexactness vs. exactness***From:*Bradley Lucier

- Prev by Date:
**Re: inexactness vs. exactness** - Next by Date:
**Revision of SRFI 70 available** - Previous by thread:
**Re: inexactness vs. exactness** - Next by thread:
**Really bignums** - Index(es):