newRPL - build 1255 released! [updated to 1299]

[Claudio L.]

(08-18-2019 08:54 PM)JoJo1973 Wrote:  I tied to replicate some of the results in Joe Horn's thread. Using the current implementation the only example I could replicate would be #2 but

14 SET PREC
π ->NUM
->Q

returns 5419351 / 1725033 which is different from the results of pdq(PI500,14) or pdq(PI,14) from Joe's thread.

I tried for fun a little test:

<< 4 20 FOR i i SETPREC π ->NUM ->Q NEXT >> which rules out an off-by-1 error in setting the precision.

Am I doing something wrong? Is ->Q using the 5*10^(-prec-1) tolerance instead of the 10^(-prec) rule? (I don't have a Prime so I can't compare results...)

PS: why are the numerators in approx form while the denominators in exact form?

His results were done using a prime, but since the prime uses a different internal representation (binary) and newRPL uses decimal, the target number is not the same in both systems. I think it's fine that it returns a different fraction as long as the result of ->NUM on that fraction is within the requested 5*10^(-prec-1) tolerance.

EDIT: I thought I took care of clearing the approx. bit. I missed something obviously...