Timeline for SetPrecision on a decimal gives imprecise result [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 8, 2016 at 17:44 | history | closed | m_goldberg CommunityBot MarcoB | Duplicate of N not behaving in the way I expected it would [duplicate] | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 12:25 | comment | added | QuantumDot | Possibly informative: youtube.com/watch?v=PZRI1IfStY0 | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 11:57 | history | edited | J. M.'s missing motivation | edited tags | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 9:43 | answer | added | Thomas Baruchel | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 8:31 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 8, 2016 at 17:45 | |||||
| Jun 8, 2016 at 4:34 | comment | added | Max | Clarified my question. Rationalize[] actually works great! I'll only be using finite decimal places of course. | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 4:32 | history | edited | Max | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Added clarification in response to commenter |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 4:22 | comment | added | J. M.'s missing motivation | You should have clarified what you wanted then; there is no indication that you want such a thing in your question. In any case: you might want to consider Rationalize[], but that doesn't work in general. | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 4:19 | comment | added | Max | @J.M. That works if you're not using a variable for precision (i.e. SetPrecision[1.1, prec]), but in my case I am. Your answer would be fine if 1.1`prec was a thing. See a previous question of mine: mathematica.stackexchange.com/questions/89837/… | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 2:44 | comment | added | J. M.'s missing motivation | Try 1.1`20. | |
| Jun 8, 2016 at 2:19 | history | asked | Max | CC BY-SA 3.0 |