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

*To*: Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: comparison operators and *typos*From*: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:34:59 -0700 (PDT)*Cc*: schlie@xxxxxxxxxxx, srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Delivered-to*: srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <20050707031950.459A31B77B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*References*: <BEF1935C.ABC6%schlie@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20050707031950.459A31B77B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Aubrey Jaffer wrote: > | Thereby hypothetically: (presuming sufficient numerical precision) > | > | (tan pi/2) => 0 > >An exact zero? That is just wrong. No, actually it's more right than we expect computation to get. If pi/2 can be an exact number in the representation used by the scheme system, an exact zero is precisely the correct response to (tan pi/2). That said, tan isn't one of the functions that is required to return an exact result given exact arguments, so even if pi/2 is exact in the number representation, we still aren't *required* to return the exact zero, even though it's true. In the usual case, where the numeric representation does not allow pi/2 to be expressed as an exact number, then we have an operation on an inexact number and we *must* return an inexact result. Bear

**References**:**Re: comparison operators and *typos***From:*Paul Schlie

**Re: comparison operators and *typos***From:*Aubrey Jaffer

- Prev by Date:
**Re: comparison operators and *typos** - Next by Date:
**Re: Nitpick with FLOOR etc.** - Previous by thread:
**Re: limit function** - Next by thread:
**infinity notations** - Index(es):