Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!sics.se!fuug!news.funet.fi!tukki.jyu.fi!jadbalja!tt From: tt@jadbalja.jyu.fi (Tapani Tarvainen) Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds Subject: Re: Accuracy w/ ln and log Message-ID: Date: 31 May 91 06:42:59 GMT References: <1991May30.120658.3590@panix.uucp> Sender: news@jyu.fi (News articles) Organization: University of Jyvaskyla Lines: 16 In-Reply-To: jhawk@panix.uucp's message of 30 May 91 12: 06:58 GMT Originator: tt@jadbalja.jyu.fi Nntp-Posting-Host: jadbalja.jyu.fi In article <1991May30.120658.3590@panix.uucp> jhawk@panix.uucp (John Hawkinson) writes: >So, my question is this: which is more accurate? #1, or #2? (does the >48 internally use LOG to compute LN, or vice versa?) Thanx. While I don't really know how it is in the 48, I do know that the HP71B computes LOG (base 10) using LN (although I think it does check for exact powers of ten first), and I've heard (and would be rather surprised if it weren't so) that most of the math routines in the 71 were used in the 48 without changes (not without additions, though :-)), and considering the way logs are computed I'm quite sure they haven't changed this. -- Tapani Tarvainen (tarvaine@jyu.fi, tarvainen@finjyu.bitnet)