[PD] problem with correct numbers in pd double precision

[Lucas Cordiviola]

If you want to print the numbers nicely to the console add [makefilename 
%f] :

[t b f]
       |
       [makefilename %f]
       |
       [print count]


Be aware of https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/812

:)

Mensaje telepatico asistido por maquinas.

On 9/18/2020 6:12 PM, hans w. koch wrote:
> hello,
>
> its probably due to my lack of understanding the correct number 
> representations, but here it goes anyway:
>
> i compiled pd 51-2 double precision for mac 10.14.6
> with this version i was hoping to do some maths on big numbers.
> but already an increment of 1 on some moderatly big number gives me 
> problems of representation.
>
> i made a simple version of the problem as a patch.
> to verify you have a working version of pd double, it contains a 
> simple test.
> and then an iterative addition +1 starting from 999999.
> i get this:
> count: 999999
> count: 1e+06
> count: 1e+06
> count: 1e+06
> count: 1e+06
> count: 1e+06
> count: 1.00000e+06
> count: 1.00001e+06
> count: 1.00001e+06
> count: 1.00001e+06
>
> the algorith terminates succesfully by a [select] after 10 iterations, 
> but the results don´t show what i expect.
> this to me indicates, that the internal numbers are correct, but they 
> don´t “surface” as such.
>
> i would be grateful for any pointers and possible workarounds, as the 
> numbers i hope to be dealing with are potentially orders of magnitude 
> higher.
>
> thanks hans
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list 
> <https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list>