Talk:Convert decimal number to rational: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(We definitely need lowest terms.) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Are we talking about only rationals? What about 3.14159265...? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 06:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC) |
Are we talking about only rationals? What about 3.14159265...? --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 06:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Well if you can express it as a finite decimal expansion ... :-)<br>--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 11:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC) |
:Well if you can express it as a finite decimal expansion ... :-)<br>--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 11:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Presumably we are only working to the precision (or double precision) of the system registers, (or to the number of digits originally provided in numerical string based implementations), so the values would all be rational. --[[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 12:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:28, 12 June 2011
Name change?
To possibly: "Convert decimal number to rational". To make it more descriptive. --Paddy3118 05:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Or "Convert from decimal into a fraction" --Markhobley 08:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- What are the plans for results greater than one? Do we want a "top heavy" fraction or whole number and fractional component? What should 3.5 and 7 look like? Presumably we want "7/2" and "7/1" or do we want "3 1/2" and "7"?
- Well, since it is not specified, I would think that it is left to the individual, but giving a fraction that is still reducible, such as 5/10 would not feel right. --Paddy3118 11:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah. We definitely need lowest terms.--Markhobley 12:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, since it is not specified, I would think that it is left to the individual, but giving a fraction that is still reducible, such as 5/10 would not feel right. --Paddy3118 11:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- What are the plans for results greater than one? Do we want a "top heavy" fraction or whole number and fractional component? What should 3.5 and 7 look like? Presumably we want "7/2" and "7/1" or do we want "3 1/2" and "7"?
Decimal?
Are we talking about only rationals? What about 3.14159265...? --Ledrug 06:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well if you can express it as a finite decimal expansion ... :-)
--Paddy3118 11:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC) - Presumably we are only working to the precision (or double precision) of the system registers, (or to the number of digits originally provided in numerical string based implementations), so the values would all be rational. --Markhobley 12:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)