Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!ryn.mro4.dec.com!ultnix.enet.dec.com!taber
From: taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
Subject: Re: How accurate is the 48??
Message-ID: <4912@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
Date: 21 May 91 12:21:46 GMT
References: <7174@acorn.co.uk>
Sender: guest@ryn.mro4.dec.com
Reply-To: taber@ultnix.enet.dec.com (Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber)
Distribution: comp
Organization: KC1TD@KB4N.NH.USA.NA.EARTH.SOLAR_SYSTEM.UNIVERSE.MIND_OF_GOD.01463
Lines: 20

In article <7174@acorn.co.uk>, asmith@acorn.co.uk (Andy Smith) writes:
|>There is no doubt that the 28S and the 48SX are brilliant calculators, but
|>one thing still puzzles me. Certainly with the 28S, although much better
|>than most calculators (3/3=1, 2/3*3=1) it is still not "accurate" due to the
|>limitations of how it stores numbers. 1/3*3 still gives 0.999999999. Does
|>the 48 still suffer from this limitation?
|>

If a calculator gave me 2/3*3 = 1, I think I'd ditch it.  But there's
good news in the case of 1/3*3 -- the answer is "it depends."  If you
have the calculator in STD mode, it gives .99999999etc (which is the
right thing to do.)  If the calculator is in FIX mode, SCI mode or ENG
mode, it gives 1. 

It's Two! Two! Two solutions in one!
--
                                             >>>==>PStJTT
                                     Patrick St. Joseph Teahan Taber, KC1TD

"Nerd" is so demeaning, I prefer "fashion-impared."