[Cfp-interest 2184] Re: AI about new wording for unaccepted change

[Jim Thomas]

> On Oct 1, 2021, at 6:09 AM, Fred J. Tydeman <tydeman at tybor.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 15:46:56 -0700 Jim Thomas wrote:
>> 
>> b) The results are not equivalent because they have different quantum exponents.
>> 
> 
> How about:
> 
> The results are equal, but have different quantum exponents, hence are not equivalent.

The statement suggests that if the results were equal (meaning compare equal) and had the same quantum exponent, then they would be equivalent, which is not true for signed zeros. The two result 12.34 and 12.340, on the preceding two lines, are obviously equal. So saying the results are equal doesn’t seem needed. 

(I believe the original idea behind the term "numerically equal” was to exclude different signed zeros and hence imply more than just equal or compare equal.)

- Jim Thomas

> 
> ---
> Fred J. Tydeman        Tydeman Consulting
> tydeman at tybor.com      Testing, numerics, programming
> +1 (702) 608-6093      Vice-chair of PL22.11 (ANSI "C")
> Sample C99+FPCE tests: http://www.tybor.com
> Savers sleep well, investors eat well, spenders work forever.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cfp-interest mailing list
> Cfp-interest at oakapple.net
> http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest