Decimal versus binary arithmetic was Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Printing from M/F COBOL
Next: Packed decimal versus binary was Re: J4 - presentation/discussion on "Future of the COBOL Standard"
From: tlmfru on 8 Apr 2008 12:00 Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message news:ebilv35o36sre1blnosdkfmqh6nrhv6o1o(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:08:23 -0500, "tlmfru" <lacey(a)mts.net> wrote: > >> > >> >Nope, all three numbers are binary INTEGERS. The fallacy is in thinking > >of quotient as a fraction. It is not a fraction, it is an integer. > >> > The compiler SCALED two integers by multiplying by powers of 10, then > >divided two binary integers to get a quotient with no fraction. > >> > Binary 10 divided by binary 5 gives binary 2. > >> > >> >101111101011110000100000000 / 1100001101010000 = 11111010000 > > > >This isn't the point. The point is that with very few exceptions a decimal > >number with figures on both sides of the decimal point can't be represented > >as a pure binary number, as the fractional portion is almost always > >non-terminating. Binary ONE divided by binary 5 gives binary ..00110011..... > >A scaled number is not the number itself: it's a transformation of the > >original. > > By definition, integers are whole numbers. There is no fractional part to an integer. > Robert, you're either deliberately or obtusely missing the point. The point is not whether a binary number with a fractional part can be converted to a scaled integer equivalent that can be manipulated by a computer. Of course it can. What you don't want to acknowledge is the simple fact that most decimal fractions when converted into binary fractions come out as a non-terminating string of ones & zeros. How does it reflect adversely on you to agree to this? > >> >Incidentally - everybody knows about the simple algoritm to convert base > >10 > >> >numbers to base 2 - i.e. repeated division by 2 - > >> >I had some fun working out the mirror algorithm to convert decimal > >FRACTIONS > >> >to binary fractions. (Very easy, actually). (Both algorithms work for > >any > >> >base). But what puzzles me is I've never seen this written up anywhere. > >> >I'm certain that the early developers of computers (or perhaps IBM > >research > >> >fellows) must have discovered the algorithm. Has anyone seen it written > >up? > > It's of no use when dealing with integers, because they have no fractional part. Can't you read? It's an algorithm for dealing with fractional parts. Of course it's no use in dealing with integers. So what? > > >Very interesting! But doesn't answer my question. I'd really like to make > >an original contribution to math or computer science but I can't believe > >that "my algorithm" is it. > > Now you're in the domain of abstraction and generalization, a faux pas in these parts. You may think so. Most of the arguments we've had over OO are in that domain. You needn't bother replying to this, Mr. Wagner. This is my last word - to you, anyway - on the subject. PL
From: Robert on 8 Apr 2008 21:39 On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:47:27 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote: >On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:39:38 -0500, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: > >>In my experience, there are two kinds of shops: those run by managers and those run by >>workers. They're split about 50-50. In the ones run by managers, refusing to do something >>is grounds for dismissal (as it should be). In the shops run by employee workers, the most >>common reason is posing a threat by being better than them. Managers want 'the best'; >>workers want to protect the status quo. > >I haven't come across the 2nd type of shop - but I suspect that if I >had, I'd find that the conflict is where at least one party KNOWS that >he is right. When that happens, nothing else matters. Defensive workers initially love people who KNOW they're right, because they think the person will self-destruct. For example, when he says he can rewrite that 16 hour job to run in 30 minutes, they happily assign it to him and tell the manager it will soon run like lightning. They stop loving him when they recieve an email apologizing for the estimation error, announcing it runs in 10 minutes, as evidenced by the attached log. When the manager asks what technical trick did the magic, the answer is the removed technical tricks others had tried, then rewrote the convoluted logic the way is should have been written. >This is the human characteristic that not only is the cause of most >wars, but it also gets in the way of progress of all kinds. No, what gets in the way of progress is lack of leadership with vision. Without a leader, workers devolve to maintaining the status quo. A manager who lets them get away with it is a bureaucrat, not a leader.
From: Richard on 9 Apr 2008 00:41 On Apr 9, 3:05 pm, Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote: > On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 22:09:08 -0700 (PDT), Richard <rip...(a)azonic.co.nz> wrote: > >On Apr 5, 3:19 pm, Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote: > >> As a point of interest, if you are standing within 6 km of either pole, you > >> will actually see the sun rise in the west .. once per year. > > >You seem to have a strange idea about what one sees when within the > >polar areas. > > Applying an adjective such as strange without elaboration does not establish the validity > of that adjective. > > The Earth rotates counter-clockwise, viewed from the north. That's why the sun rises in > the east in most places. The Earth orbits the sun clockwise. Close to the poles, > rotational effects become insignificant. The Earth's orbit and 22 degree tilt causes > sunrise at the poles. That's why the sun rises in the west there. That is exactly the sort of 'strange idea' that you seem to have. In fact it is completely wrong headed nonsense. Close to the poles the 'rotational effect' is exactly the same as anywhere else: the sun moves at 15 degrees per hour across the sky. It happens that at the poles for many months that movement across the sky is entirely below the horizon and for many other months it is entirely above the horizon. At some point near the equinox the sun is circling only just below the horizon and it completes the circle in 24 hours, at some point it will become fractionally visible as a 'sunrise' and this can occur at any point on the horizon depending on the relationship between earth's orbit and rotation and the height of the observer. Your claim that it 'rises in the west' may be true for one observer one year but false for another some short distance away or standing at a different height. It will also vary each year. If two observers both see the sun's first glimpse at the same time they may be on different sides of the pole. One would see it 'in the west' and the other 'in the east'. Or possibly 'in the north' and 'in the south'. 6 hours later the sun is at a different point of the horizon 90 degrees away and another observer may see it for the first time. The sun may also dip back and 24 hours later 'rise' again in a somewhat different place and for a slightly longer time while it travels along the horizon.
From: Howard Brazee on 9 Apr 2008 09:51 On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:39:22 -0500, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >>This is the human characteristic that not only is the cause of most >>wars, but it also gets in the way of progress of all kinds. > >No, what gets in the way of progress is lack of leadership with vision. Without a leader, >workers devolve to maintaining the status quo. A manager who lets them get away with it is >a bureaucrat, not a leader. Oh, there are plenty of leaders who have visions. And when those visions conflict with reality, reality is ignored.
From: Howard Brazee on 9 Apr 2008 09:53
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:39:22 -0500, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >Defensive workers initially love people who KNOW they're right, because they think the >person will self-destruct. For example, when he says he can rewrite that 16 hour job to >run in 30 minutes, they happily assign it to him and tell the manager it will soon run >like lightning. I haven't worked with people like that. >They stop loving him when they recieve an email apologizing for the estimation error, >announcing it runs in 10 minutes, as evidenced by the attached log. When the manager asks >what technical trick did the magic, the answer is the removed technical tricks others had >tried, then rewrote the convoluted logic the way is should have been written. Making things work right is popular - at least when the person doing so doesn't try hard to make others look bad. |