[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: alexshinn@xxxxxxxxx*Subject*: infinities reformulated [was Re: My ideas about infinity in Scheme (revised)]*From*: Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 24 May 2005 13:19:41 -0400 (EDT)*Cc*: srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <200505231703.j4NH3PTO029180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (message from Alex Shinn on Mon, 23 May 2005 15:30:02 +0900)*References*: <200505231703.j4NH3PTO029180@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

| Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 15:30:02 +0900 | From: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@xxxxxxxxx> | | On 5/23/05, Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: | > | Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 20:46:53 +0900 | > | From: Alex Shinn <alexshinn@xxxxxxxxx> | > | | > | On 5/22/05, Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: | > | > | > | > In hundreds of years of using rational numbers, mathematicians have | > | > not discovered 1/0 to be a useful extension to the rational numbers. | > | | > | Well, mathematically 1/0 isn't real or complex either, as it doesn't | > | obey the properties of a field | > | > 1/0 and -1/0 can be added in a way that preserves the total ordering | > of the real numbers. | | But closure is lost because (+ 1/0 -1/0) is not real (at which point | it's no longer a group, much less field). Introduction of 0/0 to | regain closure breaks the inverse element property of groups (the | identity element is still 1 but 0/0 has no inverse). I have come up with a clearer formulation: 6.2.2x Inexactness In an implementation which represents inexact real numbers with IEEE-754 64-bit flonums: (= 3.141592653589793 3.14159265358979323846 3.1415926535897932384626433 3.141592653589793238462643383279 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288) ==> #t Thus an inexact real number represents not a single value, but a neighborhood of (mathematical) real numbers. The inaccuracies of inexact calculations are due to misalignment of functional projection of a given neighborhood onto the real line neighborhoods. The interpretation of real infinities is that 1/0 represents real numbers greater than can be encoded by finite inexacts in the implementation (> 179.76931348623158e306 for IEEE-754 64-bit flonums) and that -1/0 represents numbers less than can be encoded by finite inexacts in the implementation (< -179.76931348623158e306 for IEEE-754 64-bit flonums). This preserves the total ordering of the (mathematical) real numbers and extends Scheme's representation to cover the entire real line. Note that no numerical infinity, with its attendant theoretical problems, is constructed; 1/0 and -1/0 represent the half-lines beyond either end of the implementation's inexact rational range. For any finite real number x: (= -1/0 x)) ==> #f (= 1/0 x)) ==> #f (< -1/0 x 1/0)) ==> #t (> 1/0 x -1/0)) ==> #t Implementations of Scheme which provide inexact real numbers shall implement positive infinity and negative infinity as unique inexact real numbers. An optional third infinity, which is not real, may be returned by a numerical function when no inexact neighborhood (including infinities) contains the correct answer. An implementation may report a violation of an implementation restriction in any calculation for which the result would be an unreal infinity. I believe these semantics avoid the problems caused by introduction of new elements to the field. | > Many ideas about efficiency have been invalidated by the growth of | > instruction speed far outstripping growth in L1 cache size. An | > article about this is: | > <http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/~jaffer/CNS/interpreter-speed> | | An interpreter is still an order of magnitude slower than a native | compiler. Regardless, if there are situations (either explicit | from the use of real? or implicit via method polymorphism) where in | the middle of a loop you must check against the IEEE-754 | infinities, then you will suffer a serious performance loss. IEEE 64-bit infinities are those numbers whose 11-bit exponent field is all ones (2047). They can be quickly detected without using a FPU.

**References**:**Re: My ideas about infinity in Scheme (revised)***From:*Alex Shinn

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [srfi-70] Limit** - Next by Date:
**Re: [srfi-70] Limit** - Previous by thread:
**Re: My ideas about infinity in Scheme (revised)** - Next by thread:
**Re: [srfi-70] Limit** - Index(es):