From: Tom Sawyer <transami@...>
Date: 2002-12-28T11:40:43+09:00
Subject: Re: 1210 / 100 = 12? what?

> I remember back in 1969 in my Introduction to Computer Programming
> course (or whatever it was called), some of the first things we learned
> had to do with fixed point and floating point arithmetic.  We spent a
> good month or so on these and other basic concepts before we were given
> our first program to write.
>
> Do they even teach these basics any more?
>
> I'm not trying to disparage anyone here; if something hasn't been
> taught, then no one can be expected to have learned it.
>
> But it's disturbing to me to see the number of people who are posting in
> this and other newsgroups in recent years who haven't been exposed to
> the concepts of fixed-point and floating-point arithmetic.  This
> indicates to me that there are many schools these days which don't make
> the effort to teach these basic concepts to their computer science
> students.  The fault is with these schools, and that's sad.

i'm curoius how this consideration was drawn out of the original question, as 
the original question, i do not believe, indicated a neccessary lack of 
understaning of fixed and floating point arithmetic, but only how ruby delt 
with particular typing issuses.

i will admit, though, that i have not had formal training in this regard. but 
do have a moderate understanding of it. notwithstanding, it is important to 
make a distinction between formal studies and pragamatic realities. indeed, 
the consideration you responded to, of having ruby return an instance of 
Rational equal to 2/3, is not actually outside the scope of possibility and 
usefulness (although billy was arguing as if it were). but there are means of 
mathmatical computing that are 100% accurate. granted they are comupationally 
intense and must indeed keep 2/3 as 2/3 and never approximate to .6666. and 
at some points require a set degree of accuracy to return, least the 
computation time be infinite, but it is an arbitrary determination. by 
dealing in quotiant rather then point arithmetic, more accuracy can be 
achieved.

in fact, i will follow in suite to your quibit. i wonder how many have had 
formal traning in the history and philosophy of mathamatics as i have, this 
being an understanding even more fundemental. "I'm not trying to disparage 
anyone here; if something hasn't been taught, then no one can be expected to 
have learned it." who here has worked through the entirety of Euclid's 
proofs, for instance?

i hope you take my meaning correctly.

we all have strengths and weakness in our knowledge pools, as is inevitable. 
thankfully we have schools as well as forums like this one to expand each 
others horizons.

-transami