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

Re: inexactness vs. exactness

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 70 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 70 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

To: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx>, Aubrey Jaffer <agj@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: inexactness vs. exactness
From: Paul Schlie <schlie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:43:37 -0400
Cc: <will@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: srfi-70@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0507270917100.2389@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913

> From: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx>
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Aubrey Jaffer wrote:
>> So, does R5RS permit an inexact number which only one mathematical
>> number rounds to?
> 
> R5RS certainly permits it, but it is difficult to imagine a practical
> implementation in which it were true.

- how about an absolute 0 for example, exclusive of +/- 0.0 ?

References:
- Re: inexactness vs. exactness
  - From: bear

Prev by Date: Re: inexactness vs. exactness
Next by Date: Re: Nitpick with FLOOR etc.
Previous by thread: Re: inexactness vs. exactness
Next by thread: Re: inexactness vs. exactness
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread