
If only or or two of them were infected...
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.





Nah, I've had it and I don't wish it on anyone.
Particularly those dumb enough to spread it to everyone around them ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it."  ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power"  Random Tshirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!





Fair enough...
you are right, innocent people living near or in the same familie as them doesn't deserve it.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.





I heard someone declare: "Whatever you may think, I am not the wise President!"





This thread has been reported 4 times for abusive/trolling, including my vote.
Let us hope it reaches 10 votes by tomorrow morning.





You're stretching and want to muzzle.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food





Am I? Seems 9 others agreed with me.





Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food





but I wonder to what extent you believe it.





I believe it only takes 5 votes to close a message; it's 10 to close an account. I was number 5, but I only reported it as "inappropriate".





You forgot the exwives. Proving to be a formidable force indeed.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food





Finished converting the U.S. Naval Observatory Astrometry software from c and doubles to c# and decimal.
The only calculations the decimals couldn't handle were the speed of light in meters (overflow) and weak gravity calculation (divide by zero). In those cases, had to use intermediate doubles.
So now you know.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food





Gerry Schmitz wrote: In those cases, had to use intermediate doubles. Not a compensating scale factor?





Using published algorithms. Any fiddling on my part would come much later.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food





"... and then some magic happens ..."





How could going from decimal to double avoid a divide by zero?
I would have spent significant resources in discovering how that could be.





The fraction in the decimal get truncated much earlier than a double. The double has less precision but much more range; it's the other way around with decimal; even though its wider bytewise.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food





If the divisor in theory, mathematically, "should have been" zero but isn't because of imprecision as floats are not 'real' numbers of unlimited precision, then the underlaying algorithm should indeed be closely inspected and investigated.
If the avoidance of a divide by zero exception is an artifact of limited precision, then I am getting close to call that a faulty implementation of the algorithm.
If, on the other hand, the divisor is from a mathematical point of view  really nonzero, but has been zeroed by some software or hardware algorithmic rules, then these rules should be reconsidered. It should never be tolerated that a small, nonzero divisor causes a dividebyzero error. That is simply incorrect! If the divisor is "valid", yet so small that it should be equivalent to zero, then it must be handled as a value (like zero), not causing an exception. If it could be handled in float format, it should be handled similarlu in decimal format!





They use it for space missions.
I'm telling you the mechanics; you want to analyze the writer's minds.
You're trying to argue there is "zero" gravity when in fact there is; "imprecision" helps maintain it.
A decimal can hold 2829 digits; if gravity is less than that, it's still not "zero".
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
modified 12Jan21 23:22pm.





If gravity can be zero, you must be prepared for it. If it is so small that it rounds off to zero, you must be prepared for it.
Note that IEEE 754 double precision has 52 mantissa bits  53 if you count the hidden one. That is a precision of about 16 decimal digits. If you need even more, you have to go to 128 bit float, with about 33 decimal digits of precision.
If it is so small that it doesn't round off to zero in 128 bit float representation, but does round to zero in decimal representation, that is rather accidental. The next weaker level of gravitation might round off to zero even in 128 bit FP, and causing a similar divide by zero. I certainly think that any algorithm implementation where the divisor might either be "true" zero, or so low that it is rounded off to zero (whether in decimal digit #34 for 128 bit FP or in decimal digit #30 for decimal representation), but nevertheless tries to do the division without checking, is faulty. The decimal format as such is not to blame.





In clinical chemistry it is common for the concentration of an analyte to be reported as "< 0.10 mg/dl" when that is the sensitivity of the test. Sensitivity of a test is defined by the random analytical variation of the test in the absence of ANY analyte, i.e. the "noise" in the measurement. cf. Gaussian standard error of estimate.
In this example, a "result" of 0.005 mg/dl is analytically indistinguishable from 0.00 mg/dl.
The same issues of analytical precision apply to the extremes of floating point calculation.





The problem in this case isn't an avoidance of a divide by zero, it's that the value is so close to zero that system.decimal can't handle the number and truncates it to zero. The wider dynamic range of system.double can handle it.





If your application really needs to handle (application) epsilons as nonzero, then you certainly have to choose a data format that allows you to handle epsilons. Maybe decimal isn't for you.
Note that even double is guaranteed to handle you application's epsilons. The Double struct defines a Double.Epsilon which is the smallest epsilon that can be represented as a double. If your application needs to handle smaller values, like Double.Epsilon/2 or smaller, the value will end up as zero. Using double does not avoid the problem entirely, just moved the borderline somewhat.
If you make a cost calculation suggesting a unit sales price of USD 2.5000000001, and the customer pays two and a half dollar, then your accounting application probably does not want to handle a balance due of USD 0.0000000001, but set it to zero. Now this certainly can be represented by a decimal, but your accounting system should round the sales price to the number of decimal places it finds relevant  the decimal struct provides such a Round method.
Your application should be conscious about epsilons: If it needs to be treated as nonzero, you use float / double (crossing fingers for the application epsilon being no smaller than Double.Epsilon). If (application) epsilons have no relevance, you should zero them, e.g. using a Round function.





decimal x = 1;
decimal y = 0;
decimal z = x / y;
double x = 1;
double y = 0;
double z = x / y; The double type complies with IEEE 754[^].
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
 Homer





As the decimal representation does not provide any bit pattern for infinities, the divide operator has no way of returning any 'decimal.PositiveInfinity'  it doesn't exist. Similarly, there is no representation of Not a Number (NaN). Some values can be represented in float/double but not in decimal; others can be represented in decimal but not in float/double.
If you really want / need to handle infinities in decimal, you can define your own AugmentedDecimal struct that is a decimal plus the required flag bits for flagging the value as, say, positive / negative infinities or NaN. Then, a DivideByZeroException handler may set these flag bits appropriately. Of course you then have to define the operators for AugmentedDecimal to check the flag bits as appropriate before performing the operation.
This is built into the float hardware. decimal is essentially done in software, even without these augmentations. So it is slow anyway. But if that is what you need, that is the price you have to pay.
Then: My guess is that the tiny part of float/double handling software that handles infinities properly is a fraction of a percent. You don't get an exception here, but when you try to use the value as a normal number (because no exception has signaled to you the exceptional value), your program may do funny things. Tracing back to the division that caused the infinity may be nontrivial.
If you do write code that properly and throughout handles infinities (i.e. within that fraction of a percent), then I am sure that you would have no problems writing a proper handler for the decimal DivideByZeroException as well.



