Re: The current proposal
And, again, what do we mean by "infinity as a number?" In 754,
we had Inf - Inf = NaN, because there is no logical way of defining
the result as a number, but, in 1788, we MAY (if we want)
define Inf - Inf = [-Inf,Inf]; the latter has a valid interpretation.
Baker
On 2/26/2009 11:08 AM, Ian McIntosh wrote:
VL> "Infinity as number" is buggy. For instance, with the above point of
VL> view, if F(x) = (x+1)-x, then F(Inf) = (Inf+1)-Inf = Inf-Inf = 0.
Under IEEE 754, F(Inf) = (Inf+1)-Inf = Inf-Inf = NaN, not 0.
- Ian McIntosh Toronto IBM Lab 8200 Warden D2-445 905-413-3411
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Baker Kearfott, rbk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (337) 482-5346 (fax)
(337) 482-5270 (work) (337) 993-1827 (home)
URL: http://interval.louisiana.edu/kearfott.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette
(Room 217 Maxim D. Doucet Hall, 1403 Johnston Street)
Box 4-1010, Lafayette, LA 70504-1010, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------