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

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 70 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 70 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

*To*: Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>*Subject*: Re: Nitpick with FLOOR etc.*From*: Paul Schlie <schlie@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:16:25 -0400*Cc*: <srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Delivered-to*: srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <BF016959.ADF9%schlie@xxxxxxxxxxx>*User-agent*: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913

> From: Paul Schlie <schlie@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> So large exact numbers must be less than +/0.. > > - maybe I misunderstand, but my attempted point was that since many exact > implementations enable the representation of value of greater magnitude than > the value range that an inexact infinity begins, it seems incorrect to define > that (> #i1/0 1e1000) if #i1/0 represents all values greater than an inexact > 1e306 for example. I would presume: > > (> #i1/0 1e1000) => #f > and > (= #i1/0 1e1000) => #f > yet > (> #e1/0 1e1000) => #t > > assuming #e1/0 were unique from #i1/0, and representing all values greater > than the representational range of an exact implementation, assuming that all > implementations of exact have some practical limit. Thereby also: > > (>= #e1/0 #i1/0) => #f ; as #e1/0 is a subset of #i1/0, not > or =. sorry, the above should be #t, as the #e1/0 set will be >= to #i1/0 .

**References**:**Re: Nitpick with FLOOR etc.***From:*Paul Schlie

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Nitpick with FLOOR etc.** - Next by Date:
**Re: Nitpick with FLOOR etc.** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Nitpick with FLOOR etc.** - Next by thread:
**Re: Nitpick with FLOOR etc.** - Index(es):