Re: Is infinity equal to infinity?

Joachim Durchholz <joachim.durchholz@munich.netsurf.de>
20 Jul 1998 17:01:00 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[10 earlier articles]
Re: Is infinity equal to infinity? henry@spsystems.net (1998-07-13)
Re: Is infinity equal to infinity? erikr@iar.se (Erik Runeson) (1998-07-20)
Re: Is infinity equal to infinity? larry.jones@sdrc.com (Larry Jones) (1998-07-20)
Re: Is infinity equal to infinity? darcy@usul.CS.Berkeley.EDU (1998-07-20)
Re: Is infinity equal to infinity? darcy@usul.CS.Berkeley.EDU (1998-07-20)
Re: Is infinity equal to infinity? darcy@usul.CS.Berkeley.EDU (1998-07-20)
Re: Is infinity equal to infinity? joachim.durchholz@munich.netsurf.de (Joachim Durchholz) (1998-07-20)
Re: Is infinity equal to infinity? miker3@ix.netcom.com (1998-07-21)
Re: Is infinity equal to infinity? dwcantrell@aol.com (1998-07-24)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Joachim Durchholz <joachim.durchholz@munich.netsurf.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 20 Jul 1998 17:01:00 -0400
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 98-07-058 98-07-108
Keywords: arithmetic

DWCantrell wrote:
>
> Perhaps a quote from Knuth [_The Art
> of Computer Programming_, 2nd ed., v. 2, p. 593] would be appropriate:
> If oo is being used to suggest overflow, it is incorrect to let
> 1/oo be equal to zero, lest inaccurate results be regarded as true
> answers.


Well, I dare disagree with Knuth here. In my eyes, checking for just
overflow and nothing else (like loss of precision) is just like fencing
off one side of a pit and leaving the others unguarded. If the algorithm
return should not only results but also an account of the results'
precision, it should be written with interval arithmetic which gives a
much more useful definition of equality anyway.


Regards,
Joachim
--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.