John W. Kennedy wrote in message ...
>robin wrote:
>> "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:KyjAf.3955$e9.3653@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> robin wrote:
>>>> From: "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 2:16 PM
>>>>
>>>>> robin wrote:
>>>>>> "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ivXyf.40$gh5.16@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> robin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The 704 family offered double precision, too; it was not fully
>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in hardware, but the hardware assisted it, and the
>> FORTRAN
>>>>>>>>>>> compiler sup****ted it.
>>>>>>>>>> It had to, in order to meet the standard.
>>>>>>>>> There was no FORTRAN standard until long afterwards.
>>>>>>>> IBM set it.
>>>>>>> So your argument is that the 704 hardware had to implement
>>>>>>> double-precision floating-point in 1954 in order to sup****t
FORTRAN IV,
>>>>>>> which didn't even come out until 1962 (two hardware generations
later)?
>>>>>> You said it ; I didn't.
>>>>> The bloody quotes are right above.
>>>> I think that it would be a good idea if you ceased
>>>> your ridiculous allegations, which have not been based on anything.
>>> You said -- it's quoted right above -- that the FORTRAN compiler for
the
>>> 704 had to sup****t double precision "in order to meet the standard",
>>> which is absurd, because the FORTRAN compiler for the 704 was the
first
>>> FORTRAN compiler there ever was, and existed long before any standard.
>>
>> And I replied that IBM set it.
>
>In other words, you are loudly insisting that the first FORTRAN compiler
>for the 704 was compatible with itself. Some people might find that
>observation a little useless.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But for most work, little difference between 36 bits and 32
bits.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But that's no measure, anyhow. The appropriate measure is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the number of mantissa bits and range of exponent.
>>>>>>>>>>> They add up to the word size, one way or the other.
>>>>>>>>>> Not relevant; what's im****tant is the breakdown --
>>>>>>>>>> and in particular, the number of mantissa bits.
>>>>>>>>> In order to make any sense of your argument, I can only assume
that you
>>>>>>>>> do not know what the words "relevant" and "mantissa" mean.
Kindly look
>>>>>>>>> them up.
>>>>>>>> The term "mantissa" has been used since the early days of
computers
>>>>>>>> to describe part of floating-point number.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you having a bad day?
>>>>>>> Either you are attempting to argue that the size of the fraction
and the
>>>>>>> size of the exponent are each more im****tant than one another,
while
>>>>>>> simultaneously maintaining that word size has nothing to do with
the
>>>>>>> issue either way, or else you are simply misusing words.
>>>>>> Are you trying to divert attention from "mantissa"?
>>>>> We'll try this one more time.
>>>>>
>>>>> You argue simultaneously that the "mantissa" is most im****tant and
that
>>>>> the exponent is most im****tant.
>>>> If you look again, you will see that I didn't say that.
>>> In one and the same posting, you said, "What's im****tant is ... the
>>> number of mantissa bits," and then followed it up by indicating that
the
>>> 360 did a good thing by increasing the exponent range at the expense
of
>>> fraction bits. You can't have it both ways.
>>
>> I didn't say that at all.
>
>Yes, you did, as is plainly visible.
>
>I see no point in arguing further with a pathological liar. I suggest
>you seek professional help.
The only one who needs help is yourself, who has clear difficulty
in comprehending posts.
BTW, I do not lie. It is you who is going out of your way
to put interpretations, inferences, and conclusions on my posts
that simply aren't there.
|
