I think you should better stop embarrassing yourself and read the provided links.

And BTW, neither is this is a C forum nor will I continue a BUK like sub-thread-flame.

So the last word is yours ...

Look, for years now you keep posting about floating point arithmetic and some obscure C libraries without even knowing the most basic terminology

Yes - computer arithmetic is something that interests me; last time I checked the gmp and mpfr libraries were a pre-requisite for building the gcc compiler and were used for its internal constant folding, but I agree that they haven't attained the widespread recognition they deserve; I think I'm ok with most of the jargon, but there's probably some holes there.

I think you should better stop embarrassing yourself and read the provided links

That's probably the most ridiculous piece of advice that I've ever received on this forum.
I have learned lots of useful and interesting things here simply by accepting that I might (as I sometimes do) embarrass myself.
(You might as well recommend that I stop breathing ;-)

So the last word is yours ...

Thank you.
I took issue with 2 things you said:

even if it's internal representation is flawed
and
part of arithmetic operations which accumulated rounding errors
[download]

You've explained the latter. You were using "rounding errors" in a narrower mathematical-jargon sense, but I took it in the broader general-English-usage sense (where an error is a mistake or fault).
I accept your explanation.
I don't think that I should be expected to have realized that you were using "rounding errors" in that mathematical sense, though others might argue differently (and they may well be right).

But you still haven't explained this notion of a "flawed internal representation". Just what is that ? Why is it flawed ? Maybe it's just another piece of basic terminology that I (as is to be expected) do not understand.

You can respond to that if you want ... though, IMO, there is no obligation upon you to do so.

The thing was, that your initial post gave me the impression you were saying that there are mistakes, faults and flaws in the way that floating point arithmetic is conducted.
I just wanted to point out that this is not so. (And that if such behaviour is found then it should be reported.)
I focused on those 2 particular phrases because they were the ones that were responsible for giving me that impression.

Cheers,
Rob

> "flawed internal representation". Just what is that ? Why is it flawed ?

see

> > > > > > > Many decimal fractions can't be represented without a tiny loss as binary floats.°

> Maybe it's just another piece of basic terminology

Not that I'm aware of. It's basic English

flaw = a small weakness

Floating point arithmetic has many advantages, the "internal representation" of most rational numbers isn't. °

There are alternative models which handle rational numbers "flawlessly" but have their own disadvantages ...

... but this is not a CS forum.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

°) see also Floating-point_arithmetic#Accuracy_problems