Re: st: RE: RE: binary-decimal precision

[Chris Ruebeck <ruebeckc@lafayette.edu>]

Something happened to the first line in my previous post.  For what 
it's worth, here's the first paragraph.

Excellent: this explains Excel's answer, too---it's in the negative 
direction.  It just looks closer to zero because -2.77556E-17 is also 
close to 0 when we're not using modulo 0.1 arithmetic, and so more 
obviously rounds to 0---which is 0.1.


On Feb 3, 2005, at 8:17 AM, Chris Ruebeck wrote:

> direction.  It just looks closer to zero because -2.77556E-17 is also 
> close to 0 when we're not using modulo 0.1 arithmetic, and so more 
> obviously rounds to 0---which is 0.1.
*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/