Printing floating points

[Bruce Carneal]

On Tuesday, 26 January 2021 at 22:23:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 January 2021 at 21:10:20 UTC, Bruce Carneal 
> wrote:
>> Even if you don't come up with proof, the attempt may be worth 
>> your time.  Good luck.
>
> Not sure what you mean... Why would anyone waste their time on 
> trying to prove something for code they have no control over, 
> it could change any minute, and which implementation by the 
> way? *shrugs*

You made an assertion, in a proof discussion, that the tractable 
extension of the exhaustive proof to cover larger FP types, was 
"no problem".

Either it really is "no problem", and clarification to the good 
of all concerned would take little of your time, or you were 
mistaken and others should not expect proof level enlightenment 
from you on the topic any time soon.

It is certainly "no problem" to extend probabilistic testing but 
closing the gap between probable and proven appears to me to be 
quite a bit harder.  That's why I had hoped that you'd had a 
breakthrough.

Your inability and/or unwillingness to produce a "no problem" 
proof suggests that you have not had a breakthrough (Fermat at 
least had the excuse of dieing :-) ).

Ah well. There are a lot of other things to work on.  I just hope 
that we can come to agree on what it means to actually prove 
something.