HP Forum Archive 12

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Re: 30. 6 vs. 30.6001... Message #1 Posted by hugh on 9 Apr 2003, 7:19 p.m. thanks for the info, interesting, but even more confusing. 30.6 is the actual number, but 30.6001 is really interesting as a fix for any floating point error. now the 29c from 1977 has the 001 but now i dont really know if the 25 book just abbreviated because of lack of space or it *preceded* the 001 hack. certainly, that all modern versions of the algorithm use 30.6001 because they just copied older works. i thought meeus had invented it, but seeing older cases makes me question this. and here's another interesting thing; any method predating computing would have used 30.6 so it must have been invented around this time. ie 1975'ish. i can see that using 30.6001 *works* as a tool to avoid problems early on. this is a kindof algorithmic archeology. :-)

Re: 30. 6 vs. 30.6001... Message #2 Posted by Trent Moseley on 9 Apr 2003, 11:08 p.m., in response to message #1 by hugh Hugh, As I posted to Andres there was no need to shorten the program because the program in the Application Book only used 46 program steps out of a total of 49. tm

[ Return to Index | Top of Index ]

Go back to the main exhibit hall