# 2016 Air Max Grey

The problem here is that Ruby is lying to you if you enter 0.3 as a literal, you will not get that value.

StefanKarpinski 171 days ago link

> There are also 255 representations of almost all representable numbers. The smallest significand possible is 1x10^1, but you can delve further into positive exponents. Conversely, 56 signed bits allows the largest integer power of 10 as 10 000 000 000 000 000 so the exponent will be 15. So there are exactly 17 representations of 10, and that the worst it gets. I forgot about the interaction between the exponent and the significand. The lack of a canonical representation is still quite problematic.

cornholio 172 days ago link

This is some seriously hyperbolic negativity.> There are also 255 representations of almost all representable numbers. [.] Aside from the fact that you wasting an entire byte of your representationHow is this different than any other floating point representation? I pretty sure IEEE floating point has the same redundancy, though numbers are normalized so comparisons are cheaper as you note. In this proposal, there are 255 representations of most values, which means that it has almost an entire byte of redundancy. However, if you really want a decimal standard, then, as I mentioned above, there already is one that is part of the IEEE 754 standard. The natural way is to use reduced paris of integers, but this is unfortunately quite prone to overflow. You can improve that by using reduced ratios of guess what floating point numbers.

I not sure what that has to do with it. It especially confusing because you get no feedback about it! Here is a Ruby session: irb(main):001:0> 0.1

This is some serious amateur hour. The most glaring problem is this:> There are 255 possible representations of zero. For example, 10 is 1 x 10^1 or 10 x 10^0 or any one of 253 other representations. Aside from the fact that you wasting an entire byte of your representation, this means that you can check for equality by comparing bits. Take a look at the the assembly implementation of equality checking:https: "fast path" (which is ten instruction) applies only if the two numbers have the same exponent. The slow path calls subtraction and returns true if the result is zero. The implementation of subtraction falls back on yet another function, which jumps around even more:https: most comparisons (no, comparing numbers with the same exponent is not the norm)it will take around FIFTY INSTRUCTIONS TO CHECK IF TWO NUMBERS ARE EQUAL OR NOT. Many of these instructions are branches and inherently unpredictable ones at that, Nike Air Max Maroon And White

Decimal Floating Point

JonahBraun 172 days ago link

In one format, IEE754 has 24576 possible representations of zero[1], which fits your definition of "wasted bits". Some of your other criticisms might 2016 Air Max Grey be valid, but at this point I like to see an accurate technical comparison between DEC64 and the decimal formats of IEEE 754.[1]

haberman 172 days ago link

=> 0.1=> 0.2=> 0.3=> 0.4=> 0.5

I would expect equality comparison to typically take around 100 cycles. It not even clear to me that this implementation is correct because at the end of the subtraction, it compares the result to the zero word, which is only one of the 255 possible representations of zero. He devoted a section in his book "JavaScript: The Good Parts" to a rather ill informed rant against it. When I saw him give a talk, I took the opportunity to ask him what he thought would be a good alternative to using IEEE 754. His answer was I shit you not "I don know". Apparently this proposal is the answer. No thanks, I will stick with the amazingly successful, ubiquitous, thoroughly thought out standard, that was spearheaded by William Kahan one of the greatest numerical analysts of all time. Anyone who doesn appreciate how good we have it with IEEE 754 should really read "An Interview with the Old Man of Floating Point" [1], in which Kahan relates just how messed up this stuff was before the IEEE 754 standardization process. It should also be noted that there already is an IEEE standard for decimal floating point [2], which is not only infinitely better thought out than this drivel, but also is already implemented in hardware on many systems sold by IBM and others, specifically for financial applications.[1] http:

haberman 172 days ago link

They all look exact, right? Well actually only 0.5 is (IIRC?). All the others are actually approximations internally.

which means that pipeline stalls will be normal. All told, Nike Air Max Original 2014

to get from one to the other there even a whole class (fractions) in between.

StefanKarpinski 172 days ago link

This is why decimal floating point formats are kind of a disaster in general and are only implemented in relatively rare hardware intended for financial uses. counting in millionths of pennies (you can still count up to 9 trillion dollars with 64 bits). But yes, a technical comparison of different decimal formats would definitely be interesting. They have different algebraic properties entirely and it takes a whole hell of a lot of work **Nike Air Max 2014 Women Black**

**
**## 2016 Air Max Grey

Air Max 2014 Womens

Adidas Primeknit Vapour Pink

Vintage Adidas Originals Shoes

Nike Air Max White And Green

Adidas Women's Originals Shoes

Womens Nike Air Max 2016 Black

Air Max 2016 Black And Gold

Nike Air Max White Pink Black

Air Max 2016 Mens Black

Nike Air Max Iridescent

Nike Air Max Ladies

Adidas Los Angeles All Black Mens

Nike Air Max Oreo Flyknit

Originals Adidas Shoes

Mens Nike Air Max 97 2017

Home / 2016 Air Max Grey