Timeline for What are the reasons for and against using normalized floating point?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 24, 2017 at 9:40 | comment | added | equaeghe | Your statements about the value of the added precision due to normalization and about computational aspects may be useful. Can you provide reference for that? | |
| Jul 24, 2017 at 9:39 | comment | added | equaeghe | “It is reasonably simple to keep track of and estimating rounding errors, if that's what you're after.”: No, the focus is on significance (next to computational aspects), which is in many applications, e.g., with measurement data, much lower (in number of bits) than the rounding error and cannot be tracked in normalized floating point. | |
| Jul 24, 2017 at 9:34 | comment | added | equaeghe | “One, nobody cares about significance information.”: This statement is clearly false, given its importance in decimal floating point. “Two, try defining what the result of common operations should be.”: Again, this must already be done for decimal floating point. | |
| Jul 24, 2017 at 9:26 | comment | added | equaeghe | I have edited my question to also use the implicit/explicit terminology. | |
| Jul 16, 2017 at 22:39 | history | answered | gnasher729 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |