I wanted to go back to the source, or at least as far as I could go (I didn't look to see if any of Von Neumann's papers covered it :) ). I know D. Goldberg's appendix covers this (pages 218-219), for the binary to…
0.921875 is 921875/10^6 = 59/64, which is exactly representable in binary since 64 (2^6) is a power of two. So 1.921875 * 2^6 = 1 59/64 * 64 = 64 + 59 = 123. Or as acqq pointed out, the bit representations are the same:…
I wanted to go back to the source, or at least as far as I could go (I didn't look to see if any of Von Neumann's papers covered it :) ). I know D. Goldberg's appendix covers this (pages 218-219), for the binary to…
0.921875 is 921875/10^6 = 59/64, which is exactly representable in binary since 64 (2^6) is a power of two. So 1.921875 * 2^6 = 1 59/64 * 64 = 64 + 59 = 123. Or as acqq pointed out, the bit representations are the same:…