>>George,
>>
>>>This is your opinion.
>>
>>We have repeat this question another time.
>>
>>Anything i write is my opinion,
>>and anything you write is your opinion.
>
>Not quite.
>
>>Write this is useless, because it is obvious.
>>
>>>Anyone with the knowledge of the limitations of 8 byte double precision floats
>>can easily avoid the problem.
>>
>>Fist this is false.
>>Second, because you cannot avoid the VFP round problem,
>>then you donnot have these knowledge.
>>
>>But i think that you tasks to have itself understood the problem,
>>but this is not true.
>>
>>Fabio
>
>First, what we do is science, and therefore, we must apply the sceintific method of: Hypothesis, Test, and Conclusion. There can be no debate about this.
>
>In our tests, we must consider all possibilties, even those that run contrary to our original opinion. My hypothesis was that this "bug" was caused by a limtation of the FPU to handle values greater than 14 digits. My tests (and I've done a number of them since my last post) seem to confirm this hypothesis. Therefore, my conclusion must be that this is a problem with the capacity of a double precision floating point number.
>
>OTOH, you simply shout "BUG". You offer no evidence, other than your word to the contrary.
>
>If you will offer us some evidence to the contrary, display your testing methodology that leads you to your conclusion, fine. Then there's matter for debate. Otherwise, you're offering opinion, and I'm offering what I consider to be fact.
>
>I've always said that when I state something, it's fact. When I'm guessing, I say so. When proven wrong, I'll apologize.
>
>You've yet to provide the proof.

Hi George,

I know that a full year has passed since you wrote this all and challenged Fabio to give PROOF. Fabio has indeed reacted and did his upper best to give proof. I'm wondering, why didn't you react to his proof? Or did you?