From 56fa0f9123cc41b53ecebe9b3c017d22f0285c50 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Cat Flynn Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:49:25 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] typo --- blogs/2024/4/27/interactive-astrodynamics.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/blogs/2024/4/27/interactive-astrodynamics.md b/blogs/2024/4/27/interactive-astrodynamics.md index e0b5a9d..e237338 100644 --- a/blogs/2024/4/27/interactive-astrodynamics.md +++ b/blogs/2024/4/27/interactive-astrodynamics.md @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ You think as far as double-precision floating points can take you - which is, wa The distance doesn't really matter anymore, you realise, since the precision is the same for an ellipse a metre across as it is for an astronomical unit. The limit now is double-precision time. Idly bouncing the ball in one hand, you work out what that means. -To be accurate to a single frame, you want be able to represent units of time as short as a frame, or 0.01 seconds. +To be accurate to a single frame, you want to be able to represent units of time as short as a frame, or 0.01 seconds. There are about ten million seconds in a year, or billion frames: looking good so far, that's only 10 significant figures, there are a few more to go yet. In a thousand years, the smallest step we can represent is still less than a microsecond, so you keep going. After a million years, the minimum increment finally creeps up to half a millisecond, which sounds about right.