Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!reed!intelhf!ichips!iWarp.intel.com!inews!news
From: news@inews.intel.com (news accounting id)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: IEEE floating point
Keywords: Various contributors have discussed the pros and cons of IEEE FP
Message-ID: <4451@inews.intel.com>
Date: 28 May 91 21:37:47 GMT
References: <9105250030.AA08036@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <5397@network.ucsd.edu> <3421@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <KHB.91May28121625@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: mfineman@cadev6.UUCP (Mark Fineman ~)
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 24

>
>In article <3421@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) writes:
>
>>    Take a course in numerical analysis. A small reduction in accuracy can
>
>I second the motion. Ideally the course will expose you  to case
>studies where you will see bad algorithms, bad implementations of good
>algorithms, ill-condition systems, and bad computer arithmetic (among
>other things) the really interesting lesson is that you often can't
>tell one failure from another from the symptoms.
 What you should do is use interval arithmetic.  It uses twice the
 memory and less than 3 times the time*gates.   By using interval
 arithmetic you at least know when something is messed up.  In fact,
 used typed data and you'll know if your algorithms make sense.
From: mfineman@cadev6.intel.com (Mark Fineman ~)
Path: cadev6!mfineman

(408) 765-4277; MS SC3-36, 3065 Bowers Ave, Santa Clara, CA 95052

 / decwrl \
 | hplabs |
-| oliveb |- !intelca!mipos3!cadev6!mfineman
 | amd    |
 \ qantel /