Re: Large numbers (or is Ada the choice for me?)

[dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner)]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 18:12:56 -0500, Marin David Condic <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> wrote:
>"David Starner" <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> wrote in message
>news:98bfb2$a2g1@news.cis.okstate.edu...
>> Yes. Computers can handle fractions just fine with the appropriate
>> package. I'm not sure it's feasible to have no approximations in a large
>> system of linear equations, but it's possible.
>>
>Maybe a bad example - my point is that there exists a possibility of
>generating numbers which are going to have an infinite number of decimal
>places and memory only goes so far. Hence, you're going to need some sort of
>approximation.

No, not if you want to expand the complexity. Every irrational number you 
would probably need you could express in terms of pi, e, sqrt, cube roots,
sin, and rational numbers.

>For matrix stuff, you might theoretically be able to handle the math
>entirely in fractions, but would you like the solution in our lifetime? :-)
>(Simulated big number math is probably bad enough!)

Depending on what you're doing, it may be fast enough. My question is
where do you prefer 12038838484884757761111111111456646243627 /
12883848484058534671734792837598275927 to the equivelent decimal 
solution.

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and 
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg