I ran a test on my graphing calculator to check for floating point error, and after forty eight hours of complete and utter randomness, the calculator had not lost a single digit of precision.
How does TI pull this off?
Share
Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
I ran a test on my graphing calculator to check for floating point error, and after forty eight hours of complete and utter randomness, the calculator had not lost a single digit of precision.
How does TI pull this off?
The TI-89 and TI-92 avoid error by using symbolic computation to store values exactly.
Actual floating-point computations (“approx” mode on the 89/92) do have errors. They’re just harder to notice because the TI calculators display fewer digits than they store. Also, they use decimal instead of binary.
For example, if you enter the expression
1/3*3-1on a TI-89 in “approx” mode, you get the answer⁻1.ᴇ⁻14instead of the0you get in exact mode. Internally, the calculation is done as follows:1/3gives0.33333333333333, rounded to 14 significant digits.0.99999999999999. Because of rounding, this displays as1.-0.00000000000001, or -1e-14.