| William M. Klein 2004-08-31, 3:55 am |
| There are TONS of "mathmatics" dictionaries that can explan (and document) that
"fixed point" and "integer" are two very DIFFERENT terms (an integer is - always
I think, but am not positive - a fixed point number; but a fixed point number is
NOT an integer). See for example:
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/integer
"An inductive definition of an integer is a number that is either zero or an
integer plus or minus one. An integer is a number with no fractional part. If
written as a fixed-point number, the part after the decimal (or other base)
point will be zero."
Also,
http://www.campusprogram.com/refere...ed_point_1.html
"In computing, a fixed-point number representation is a real data type for a
number that has a fixed number of digits after the decimal (or binary or
hexadecimal) point. For example, a fixed-point number with 4 digits after the
decimal point could be used to store numbers such as 1.3467, 281243.3234 and
0.1000, but would round 1.0301789 to 1.0302 and 0.0000654 to 0.0001."
while (same general source
http://www.campusprogram.com/refere...in/integer.html
"They are also known as the whole numbers, although that term is also used to
refer only to the positive integers (with or without zero)."
***
However, possibly the most relevant (for CLC) definition for "integer" is that
used in the COBOL Standard itself. See the section "
5.4 Integer operands" on page 20 of the 2002 Standard.
NOTE:
In answer to one of the earlier posts, I certainly agree that EVERY "fixed
point" number can be expressed as an integer with a SCALING factor (i.e. times a
"power of 10). However, that is QUITE a different thing than saying that every
fixed point number *is* an integer (which it simply isn't in either the COBOL,
number theory, or general computing definition of the two terms)
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Robert Wagner" <robert@wagner.net.yourmammaharvests> wrote in message
news:v2h7j0dqgqga79u7ufe1nlrtnrfoav4944@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:23:41 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
> <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> They are integers. If you don't think so, post some evidence to the
> contrary.
|