MOD function does not work! So be warned!

[Dar Scott]

Ian wrote,
>   put .1 * adjustment into increment

On Sunday, March 31, 2002, at 03:06 PM, Dar Scott wrote:

>> The problem is completely avoided.
>
> In general no.  In the special case of mod 550, maybe.

I'm wrong.  Well, 99%. You are right, Ian.  A very large class of 
computations will work OK by  using signed whole numbers (less than 
15 digits).  You will want to make sure you don't let the error of 
a fraction sneak in.

Revolution numbers represent integers (in the math sense) up to 
about 15 digits exactly.  I apologize for the confusion.

(A simple mental exercise:  Imagine some arbitrary non-zero decimal 
number.  Imagine that you convert it to binary.  Imagine that you 
shift the binary point to the left, counting the bits you pass.  
Shift it to just to the right of the left-most bit that is a 1.  
Imagine that you cut off the portion to the right of the binary 
point beyond some number of bits corresponding to mantessa of the 
floating point number.  Note that no ones are dropped off.)

Y' know, a number improvement based on Ian's idea would be a lot 
more feasible than my idea of exact numerals (and applying 
numberFormat to calculations).

Sorry about the error.  As the great philosopher Michael Mays said,
> What numbskull posted this?!

Dar Scott