[PD] Some more float weirdness/fun

[Roman Haefeli]

On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 18:03 -0500, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> Le 2012-03-08 à 11:47:00, Jonathan Wilkes a écrit :
> 
> >> From: Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com>
> >> That's a good example of the implications inherent in floats. What you
> >> call a work-around is actually the correct solution. When counting, make
> >> sure you count with something that can precisely represented by floats,
> >> otherwise the error will grow with each iteration. Integers up to
> >> 1.6*10^7 meet that criterion.
> > Is this still an issue when float precision is 64-bit?
> 
> in float32 you have 24 significant bits.
> in float64 you have 53 significant bits.
> 
> This means that the limit is pushed back from 16777216 to 9007199254740992 
> instead.

But 0.1 still cannot be represented exactly by float64, can it?

Roman