Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/09/14/20:41:14
On Sep 14, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
> John Doty wrote:
>>> I disagree very strongly with floating point, but using a fixed-size
>>> decimal is an important improvement!
>>
>> The trouble is that common computer numerics do not actually obey the
>> same rules as mathematical numbers.
>
> Nod.
>
>
>> Rational numbers fix these problems.
> ..
>> For rendering on a grid, use fixed or floating point. The rationals
>> that fall on your grid are a set of measure zero, anyway.
>
> Output (rendering on grid) is one issue, and is easy enough to deal
> with in isolation.
>
> But input (rotate by 60 degrees) is another issue, and less easy to
> handle, because it's very important for usability that user
> input->output and vice versa is also closed.
Unfortunately, a closed system handling rational rotation angles requires that you go to the field of algebraic numbers for translations. Mathematica has proprietary code that can perform rigorous calculations with algebraics, but I don’t know of any other system that can do this. You wind up manipulating numbers whose printed representation looks like Root[4 + 3 #1 + 2 #1^2 + #1^3 &, 1].
>
> Fun!
Indeed!
>
>
> //Peter
>
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com
- Raw text -