Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: 2.2.0pre4 detects a "166193960 Hz processor" | From | Russell Senior <> | Date | 06 Jan 1999 16:30:48 -0800 |
| |
>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Wedgwood <cw@ix.net.nz> writes:
>> Detected 166193960 Hz processor.
Chris> I _seriously_ doubt it's that accurate -- we perhaps should Chris> only stick to 4 or 5 significant figures, beyond that I'm very Chris> skeptical... 166.2MHz in this case seems like a more logical Chris> claim.
The number of digits doesn't have to imply the accuracy. I have listened to numerous physical scientists from the slide-rule era decry the excessive digits found in computer land. Usually it is a knee-jerk reaction. Sometimes those extra digits can be useful, and since throwing them away is an non-reversible process, sometimes keeping them is a good thing. I am not saying that this is one of those cases, just suggesting a thoughtful approach.
IMO, the use of significant digits to imply the accuracy of a value is a kludge, loaded with the artifacts of arbitrary decisions. If an indication of accuracy is needed, there are better alternatives.
-- Russell Senior seniorr@teleport.com
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |