I think a problem occured when i used long()
Andrew Dalke
adalke at mindspring.com
Thu Sep 2 21:55:19 EDT 2004
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Thu Sep 2 21:55:19 EDT 2004
- Previous message (by thread): I think a problem occured when i used long()
- Next message (by thread): Give * operator "deep copy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Porky Pig Jr wrote: > Incidently, if I recall, the arguments against 'very high precision' > was coming from scientists (e.g. those dealing with quantum mechanics > issues) rather than from programmers. The main argument was that the > measuring tools' precision is soo well below 53bit precision available > as 'C double' that using anything higher than that will mistakenly > create the impression of 'very high precision of the experiment' - but > this is just it - *mistakenly*. Out of curiosity, I looked for the physical constant with the most precisely measured value. It looks to be the electron magn. moment to Bohr magneton ratio http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt which is -1.001 159 652 1859 with error of 0.000 000 000 0038 That's 1 part in 10**13. So there are a few things which need that sort of precision. (53 bits is about 1 part in 10**16. 10**13 needs only 43 bits.) I also think GIS systems need enough precision so that single isn't good enough for large maps. 23 bits for a 32 bit float gives about a 4m resolution while 53 bits gives about a nm resolution. I did molecular mechanics, not QM, but I don't recall the QM people complaining about this issue. Andrew dalke at dalkescientific.com
- Previous message (by thread): I think a problem occured when i used long()
- Next message (by thread): Give * operator "deep copy"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list