From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,69bb03cc695b330a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-09 20:54:07 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!unlnews.unl.edu!newsfeed.ksu.edu!nntp.ksu.edu!news.okstate.edu!dvdeug
From: dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu (David Starner)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Large numbers (or is Ada the choice for me?)
Date: 10 Mar 2001 02:56:09 GMT
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Message-ID: <98c549$7hu1@news.cis.okstate.edu>
References: <slrn9ai9uk.iv9.georg@apal.ii.uib.no> <98bbbg$jmf$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <98bfb2$a2g1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <98bo2p$njh$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
Reply-To: dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: x8b4e531b.dhcp.okstate.edu
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.3 (Linux)
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5598
Date: 2001-03-10T02:56:09+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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