on 7/11/00 11:19 pm, Robin at robinc@... wrote: > Actually, I believe Peter is on to something here, though not quite a 10^308 > something. I believe the imprecision with double-precision floats only comes > into play with certain decimal values (fractions not fractions of 2). If you > stick with "integer floats", I think you can take full advantage of the > non-exponent bits (6 bytes in PPC?), as demonstrated by the following. So if > I'm right, you can get 1.5 x the digit precision allowed by unsigned long > integers. > Well. Yes and no, Peter. What you say is obviously quite correct, but it > doesn't alter the fact that the largest number that FB3 can accurately > handle is 4,294,967,295 or 2^32. I stand corrected - I spent some time on this last night. I _think_ that the largest number than FB3 (PPC) can handle with true fidelity is : 9007199254740991 (or (2 ^ 53) - 1) This is by defining the variable as a DOUBLE, with gFBfloatMaxDigits% = 1 _RoundUpFloat2Long = _false DEFDBL 16 (Not sure if these make any difference - just the settings I used) If you create a loop, and increment the Variable by 1, the variable stops being updated at 2 ^ 53. If anyone can get the "standard" FB3 to go any higher, I'd be interested to know. Phil.