Luke Paireepinart wrote:
> I've always wondered:
> There are numbers in Decimal that can't be represented accurately in
> Binary without infinite precision.
> But it doesn't go the other way. Rational base-2 numbers are rational
> base-10 numbers. I'm supposing this is because base-10 is a hig
"wormwood_3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
1.1
> 1.1001
> "1.1" is a float type, and apparently it cannot be represented by
> binary floating point numbers accurately.
> I must admit that I do not understand why this is the case.
This isn't just a problem in binary. Consider u
Chris Calloway wrote:
> wormwood_3 wrote:
>
>> The second case is, of course, what is throwing me. By having a decimal
>> point, "1.1" is a float type, and apparently it cannot be represented by
>> binary floating point numbers accurately. I must admit that I do not
>> understand why this is
wormwood_3 wrote:
> The second case is, of course, what is throwing me. By having a decimal
> point, "1.1" is a float type, and apparently it cannot be represented by
> binary floating point numbers accurately. I must admit that I do not
> understand why this is the case. Would anyone be able to
wormwood_3 wrote:
1.1
> 1.1001
> The second case is, of course, what is throwing me. By having a
> decimal point, "1.1" is a float type, and apparently it cannot be
> represented by binary floating point numbers accurately. I must admit
> that I do not understand why this is the c
Dear Tutors,
Reading through Wesley's delightful Core Python Programming, I came across
something I have not been able to grasp yet. Some introductory code:
>>> 1
1
>>> 1.1
1.1001
>>> print 1
1
>>> print 1.1
1.1
The second case is, of course, what is throwing me. By having a decim
