on 8/1/02 11:07 AM, Drew Vassallo at snurple@HOTMAIL.COM wrote:



> Oh my, the math people on this list are cringing as we speak.  Try 0.015%
> error.

Yes. I would say the "math people" on this list *would* be cringing. All I
know is that my target time was 32768s second and I got 32763 seconds. When
I went to school, 32763/32768 was 0.99984741211 - That is NOT 16% and it is
NOT 0.015% - it is 0.00015258789 % - I did the math again.

> That is, for every 1000 instruction cycles, you have an additional
> 15 cycles unaccounted for.  This ain't bad by any stretch, but not perfect,
> either.

I don't see that I can have *additional* instruction cycles when my time
came up slightly short! If I had 15 additional instruction cycles for every
1000, then I would have ended up with a time of 33259.52 seconds - would I
not?

Regards,

Sean

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads