Re: [Chicken-users] Possible numbers bug

[Matt Welland]

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Peter Bex <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:03:41AM -0700, Matt Welland wrote:
....
>> 2. Taking the inverse exponent (i.e. result^(1/n) ) runs into trouble
>> at n=144. Anyone care to explain why that is and is there a numerical
>> methods trick to work around it?
>
> You divide the inexact 1.0 by the number.  Try doing an exact division
> like (/ 1 n) or just (/ n). This will produce a rational number which
> is exact and not limited in any way.

Ah, yeah, I forgot to mention that I tried both 1.0 and 1 and got the
same result.

Matt
-=-
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
> --
> http://sjamaan.ath.cx
> --
> "The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
>  is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
>  and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
>  experience much like composing poetry or music."
>                                                        -- Donald Knuth
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chicken-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>