[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
Chris Ruebeck <[email protected]> |

To |
[email protected] |

Subject |
Re: st: RE: RE: binary-decimal precision |

Date |
Thu, 3 Feb 2005 11:21:13 -0500 |

Something happened to the first line in my previous post. For what it's worth, here's the first paragraph.

Excellent: this explains Excel's answer, too---it's in the negative direction. It just looks closer to zero because -2.77556E-17 is also close to 0 when we're not using modulo 0.1 arithmetic, and so more obviously rounds to 0---which is 0.1.

On Feb 3, 2005, at 8:17 AM, Chris Ruebeck wrote:

direction. It just looks closer to zero because -2.77556E-17 is also close to 0 when we're not using modulo 0.1 arithmetic, and so more obviously rounds to 0---which is 0.1.

* * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**References**:**st: RE: RE: binary-decimal precision***From:*"David Harrison" <[email protected]>

**Re: st: RE: RE: binary-decimal precision***From:*Chris Ruebeck <[email protected]>

- Prev by Date:
**st: Two stage estimation: Can the first stage be a count model** - Next by Date:
**st: nonparametric tests for variance** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: RE: RE: binary-decimal precision** - Next by thread:
**st: bootstrapping average treatnment effect uing cluster option** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |