EUforum Messages
- Powered by Euphoria -
Post Reply Previous Next All Messages
Date: Thu May 8 16:49
From: Jason Gade <jaygade at yaho?.com>
Subject: Re: Current implementation of exp() is faulty.

CChris wrote:
> Results:
> {253,231,104,139,8,235,188,65}
> {3,232,104,139,8,235,188,65}
> {152,124,211,84,22,222,3,65}
> {154,124,211,84,22,222,3,65}
> {93,5,149,207,157,130,213,64}
> {97,5,149,207,157,130,213,64}
> {108,12,71,125,234,73,167,64}
> {110,12,71,125,234,73,167,64}
> {141,192,144,86,220,54,121,64}
> {142,192,144,86,220,54,121,64}
> {142,51,112,153,56,141,98,64}
> {142,51,112,153,56,141,98,64}

You can see what I'm saying right here in your output -- the differences are
in the least significant bits (the first element or two of the sequence). Try
converting these byte sequences to numbers and then print out the decimal representation
of them and see if they match.

--
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
system that works.
--John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.

"Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
--C.A.R. Hoare

j.

 
Post Reply Previous Next All Messages