[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*: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:35:24 -0400*Cc*: <srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Delivered-to*: srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <20050720192519.8B6FA1B77B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*User-agent*: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913

> From: Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > | I would presume: > | > | (> #i1/0 1e1000) => #f > > Okay. (number->string 1e1000) ==> #i+/0 > If you meant #e1e1000, then the answer should be #t. yes I meant #e1e1000, which implies you'd advocate: (> #i1e400 #e1e1000) => #t which doesn't seem particularly reasonable, given that it's false, (and honestly can't see how it can be rationalized as being otherwise). nor does (inexact->exact #i1/0) => 1e306 [or whatever] seem reasonable unless you propose that (- #i1/0 1) :: (- 1e306 1), thereby #1/0 merely represents the greatest magnitude inexact value, which all values greater than saturate to. Thereby an exact infinity would correspondingly represent the greatest representable exact value, which all corresponding greater values saturate to as well. Candidly, I don't any reasonable way for exact and inexact representations to have the same infinite limit value, unless their value ranges are correspondingly defined as being equivalent, which typically isn't the case.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Nitpick with FLOOR etc.***From:*bear

**Re: Nitpick with FLOOR etc.***From:*Aubrey Jaffer

**References**:**Re: Nitpick with FLOOR etc.***From:*Aubrey Jaffer

- 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):