Re: "Large" negative numbers
From: Bob Silverman (pubkeybreaker_at_aol.comstuff)
Date: 12/31/04
- Next message: jacob navia: "Re: Bush accused of undermining the UN with aid coalition"
- Previous message: mensanator_at_aol.compost: "Re: Jumping Along A Number-Line: Game"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: "Large" negative numbers"
- Next in thread: Mike Oliver: "Re: "Large" negative numbers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 31 Dec 2004 01:08:26 GMT
It is "not quite" a matter of viewpoint.
In complexity theory, the size of a number
is independent of its sign. Its size is
the number of bits needed to represent
it. Thus, a 100 bit integer is the same
size as (say) a floating point number between 1 and 2 with 100 bits of
precision.
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
- Next message: jacob navia: "Re: Bush accused of undermining the UN with aid coalition"
- Previous message: mensanator_at_aol.compost: "Re: Jumping Along A Number-Line: Game"
- In reply to: robert j. kolker: "Re: "Large" negative numbers"
- Next in thread: Mike Oliver: "Re: "Large" negative numbers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|