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

*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):