Kenneth Lumia wrote:
{Quote hidden}>Ake,
>
>Before you get too involved with trying to figure out a method,
>you may want to try to reduce the number of significant digits
>in the problem. The final method chosen would depend on the
>accuracy required on the output. I would think you could round
>many of the factors to fewer digits and still get a reasonably
>accurate answer. Try using a spreadsheet with columns setup
>using the "full accuracy" numbers, and other columns with the
>coefficients rounded to 3 or 4 digits. In otherwords, simplify
>before you design.
>
>Once done, you can then decide where the decimal point
>should go and then multiply the coefficients by powers of 2
>and keep track of where the decimal point should be.
>A convenient multiple is 2**8 which will fix the decimal
>between two bytes.
>
>
>Ken
>
>
>{Original Message removed}