> From: Paul Schlie <xxxxxx@comcast.net>
>> So large exact numbers must be less than +/0..
>
> - maybe I misunderstand, but my attempted point was that since many exact
> implementations enable the representation of value of greater magnitude than
> the value range that an inexact infinity begins, it seems incorrect to define
> that (> #i1/0 1e1000) if #i1/0 represents all values greater than an inexact
> 1e306 for example. I would presume:
>
>  (> #i1/0 1e1000) => #f
> and
>  (= #i1/0 1e1000) => #f
> yet
>  (> #e1/0 1e1000) => #t
>
> assuming #e1/0 were unique from #i1/0, and representing all values greater
> than the representational range of an exact implementation, assuming that all
> implementations of exact have some practical limit.  Thereby also:
>
>  (>= #e1/0 #i1/0) => #f ; as #e1/0 is a subset of #i1/0, not > or =.

sorry, the above should be #t, as the #e1/0 set will be >= to #i1/0 .