Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
However, a preferable way of obviating that round-off-error problem is, as suggested in g.kov's answer, percusse's comment, and Qrrbrbirlbel's comment, to iterate over integers and compute the value of interest elsewhere, either like so
However, a preferable way of obviating that round-off-error problem is, as suggested in g.kov's answer, percusse's comment, and Qrrbrbirlbel's comment, to iterate over integers and compute the value of interest elsewhere, either like so
The problem illustrated by your example is due to round-off error. See section 56 in the TikZ/PGF documentation (v2section 56 in v2.10, p.505505; or section 83 in v3.0, p.910):
[...] for fractional steps that are not multiples of 2n2^{-n} for some small n, rounding errors can occur pretty easily. Thus, in \foreach \x in {0,0.1,...,0.5} {\x, }, 0.5 should probably be replaced by 0.501 for robustness.
The problem illustrated by your example is due to round-off error. See section 56 in the TikZ/PGF documentation (v2.10, p.505):
[...] for fractional steps that are not multiples of 2n for some small n, rounding errors can occur pretty easily. Thus, in \foreach \x in {0,0.1,...,0.5} {\x, }, 0.5 should probably be replaced by 0.501 for robustness.
The problem illustrated by your example is due to round-off error. See the TikZ/PGF documentation (section 56 in v2.10, p.505; or section 83 in v3.0, p.910):
[...] for fractional steps that are not multiples of 2^{-n} for some small n, rounding errors can occur pretty easily. Thus, in \foreach \x in {0,0.1,...,0.5} {\x, }, 0.5 should probably be replaced by 0.501 for robustness.
Bounty Awarded with 200 reputation awarded by kiss my armpit
