Re: "still unclear on infinite intervals"
RBK wrote:
>On 05/25/2011 01:29 PM, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
>> The REALLY critical thing is that it is consistent. If you adopt
>> that approach, then anything/0 (or an interval containing it) MUST
>> be a NaN (and not (-inf,+inf)), and there must be no way to lose NaNs.
>
>Hmmm ... I don't think Ýanything¨ / Ý-a,a¨ = NaN
>was what the proposers of that motion had in mind.
I think Nick intended "that approach" to refer to an arithmetic where
intervals are defined over the extended reals, so 1/0 can be a member
of an interval. Motion 3 specifically excluded that, so dividing by
an interval spanning zero is simply unbounded.
Michel.
---Sent: 2011-05-25 19:04:40 UTC