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

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

*To*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: multiplicative inverse of 0.0*From*: Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:52:12 -0400 (EDT)*Delivered-to*: srfi-77@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*In-reply-to*: <20051022020312.GB5632@NYCMJCOWA2> (jcowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)*References*: <20051021145326.816C11B77BB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20051021155906.GC16464@NYCMJCOWA2> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0510210910130.18969@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20051022020312.GB5632@NYCMJCOWA2>

| procedure: - z1 z2 | procedure: - z | procedure: - z1 z2 ... | procedure: / z1 z2 | procedure: / z | procedure: / z1 z2 ... | | With two or more arguments, these procedures return the difference | or quotient of their arguments, associating to the left. With one | argument, however, they return the additive or multiplicative | inverse of their argument. | | ... | | (/ 0.0) ==> +nan.0 | (/ 1.0 0) ==> +inf.0 | (/ -1 0.0) ==> -inf.0 | (/ +inf.0) ==> 0.0 If 0.0 is the multiplicative inverse of +inf.0, then +inf.0 must be multiplicative inverse of 0.0. But (/ 0.0) ==> +nan.0. Which line is correct?

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: multiplicative inverse of 0.0***From:*Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk

**Re: multiplicative inverse of 0.0***From:*Bakul Shah

**Re: multiplicative inverse of 0.0***From:*John.Cowan

**References**:**arithmetic issues***From:*Aubrey Jaffer

**Re: arithmetic issues***From:*John.Cowan

**Re: arithmetic issues***From:*bear

**Re: arithmetic issues***From:*John.Cowan

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Exactness** - Next by Date:
**Re: Exactness** - Previous by thread:
**Re: +nan.0 contradiction** - Next by thread:
**Re: multiplicative inverse of 0.0** - Index(es):