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

*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):