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

*To*: navajo!Cassels%STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM@navajo.stanford.edu*Subject*: Rational Infinity*From*: edsel!bhopal!jonl@navajo.stanford.edu (Jon L White)*Date*: Thu, 5 Feb 87 22:33:00 PST*Cc*: navajo!common-lisp%sail@navajo.stanford.edu*In-reply-to*: Robert A. Cassels's message of Wed, 4 Feb 87 09:27 EST

Re: The existence of infinite rational objects and how they come about are two separate issues. . . . Very good point. Re: . . . One of the reasons that rational infinities aren't in Common Lisp yet is that there is some debate about whether rational infinity is affine (signed) or projective (unsigned). Although Common Lisp doesn't require IEEE floating-point capability, I think most people would agree that it's a reasonable goal to reach for. For compability with the infinities available there, one would like to have both +1/0 and -1/0 (I presume we can agree on a canonical form for a rational infinity, that its denominator should be 0 and its numerator's magnitude should be 1 ?) -- JonL --

**Follow-Ups**:**Rational Infinity***From:*Robert A. Cassels <Cassels@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: REMF and REMPROP** - Next by Date:
**Re: Binding terminology** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Rational Infinity** - Next by thread:
**Rational Infinity** - Index(es):