24 Oct
2011
24 Oct
'11
9:31 a.m.
On 24 Oct 2011 at 9:07, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2011, Chuck Guzis wrote:
I call it "exponential" notation. "Scientific" notation is also
fairly descriptive. FORTRAN's "real" is a convenient, if not
accurate, shorthand.
On an aside, does anyone remember the proposal (I don't think it went
anywhere) to have the exponential part of such notation also be
logarithmic? The idea was that dynamic range would be greatly
increased, with greater precision in values near unity.
--Chuck
I don't care if the radix is 2, 10 or 13.
What is normally termed
"floating point" is a slight misnomer.
Agreed.
What SHOULD we call it? (Something short and [over]simpler than "IEEE
32 bit floating point representation standard")