[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*: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 09:58:30 -0400*Cc*: <srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Delivered-to*: srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <20050801170008.A0AB11B77B4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*User-agent*: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913

> From: Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > | Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:14:55 -0400 > | From: Paul Schlie <schlie@xxxxxxxxxxx> > | > | > From: Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > | > > | > If you eliminate unnormalized numbers, then the difference > | > between all pairs of positive flonums having the most negative > | > exponent is 0, which isn't right. > | > | - Agreed it's not 0, but +/- 0.0, (i.e. the reciprocal of +/- Inf.0) > > Then it is some new type of infinitesimal, because adding it to > numbers with the most negative exponent returns different numbers. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean; as it's impossible for the difference between every two adjacent values to be representable unless it's anticipated that the representational format supports infinitesimally small value representations. Just as the difference between the smallest adjacent unnormatlized values are not representable either. (as traditionally infinities and their reciprocals are non-accumulating, if the difference between to values is too small to be represented and results in a reciprocal infinity, then it's sum with either value will result in that value; where if more precision is desired I'd guess some form of a more precise exact representation would be necessary?)

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

- Prev by Date:
**flonum precision** - 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):