On 09-Nov-10 13:57:08, Hadley Wickham wrote:
>> Where the value of exp(1) as computed by R is concerned, you have
>> been deceived by what R displays ("prints") on screen. The default
>> is to display any number to 7 digits of accuracy, but that is not
>> the accuracy of the number held internally by R:
>>
>> _exp(1)
>> _# [1] 2.718282
>> _exp(1) - 2.718282
>> _# [1] -1.715410e-07
>
> I encourage anyone confused about this issue to study
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
>
> And to watch
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejweI0EQpX8
>
> Hadley
"YES"! And to really clinch the point, have a look at:
http://www.preventblindness.org/playitsafe/
teachers_guide_grade3_grade4/paradoxelephant.jpg
and perhaps also my own composition at:
http://www.zen89632.zen.co.uk/Misc/multinecker.pdf
What you *see* in treacherous (or any) images is marks on paper,
or on a computer screen, ...
What you *perceive* is different. Always. (Well, almost always:
you can make a deliberate effort to study the marks on the paper
as marks on paper).
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <ted.hard...@wlandres.net>
Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861
Date: 09-Nov-10 Time: 14:57:31
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
______________________________________________
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
