[PD] problem with correct numbers in pd double precision

[Lucas Cordiviola]

I think you can convert symbol back to float just using [f ].

[123123123(
|
[makefilename %f]
|
[t a 0]
|     |
[text set foo]



[0(
|
[text get foo]
|
[f ]
|
[print]


:)

Mensaje telepatico asistido por maquinas.

On 9/19/2020 4:16 AM, hans w. koch wrote:
> thanks lucas,
>
> transitioning numbers over to symbolland could solve my problem, interesting to know.
>
> i need to store some of the big numbers in a textfile and there i get the same problems with representation.
> if i recall them later, they´ve lost their precision.
> so i can make the transition back from symboldland with a bit of fudi objects voodoo and be good :-)
>
> what i use is this:
> [makefilename %f]
> |
> [list trim symbol]
> |
> [fudiformat -u]
> |
> [fudiparse]
>
> and have my number back from symbol.
>
> best
> hans
>
>
>
>> Am 19.09.2020 um 05:32 schrieb Lucas Cordiviola <lucarda27 at hotmail.com>:
>>
>> 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>