Intel underestimates error bounds by 1.3 quintillion
|
10-16-2014, 09:53 PM
Post: #2
|
|||
|
|||
RE: Intel underestimates error bounds by 1.3 quintillion
Yap, it doesn't matter how deep you debug your code or logic circuits, at least one bug remains hidden to be discovered in the field.
I remember to use a WANG PC running a 66MHz Pentium inside at my office, and many jokes were circulating between the IT people in those days. One joke was like this: Question: Intel have created the 80286, followed by the 80386, and then the 80486; so, why is the Pentium not called 80586? Answer: Because when they tried to add 486 + 100 on the new processor they got 584.9999992913. Jose Mesquita RadioMuseum.org member |
|||
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Messages In This Thread |
Intel underestimates error bounds by 1.3 quintillion - BruceH - 10-15-2014, 09:31 PM
RE: Intel underestimates error bounds by 1.3 quintillion - jebem - 10-16-2014 09:53 PM
RE: Intel underestimates error bounds by 1.3 quintillion - pito - 10-18-2014, 07:14 AM
RE: Intel underestimates error bounds by 1.3 quintillion - Werner - 10-18-2014, 04:40 PM
RE: Intel underestimates error bounds by 1.3 quintillion - pascal_meheut - 10-18-2014, 05:32 PM
RE: Intel underestimates error bounds by 1.3 quintillion - Werner - 10-18-2014, 05:57 PM
|
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)