> From: Aubrey Jaffer <xxxxxx@alum.mit.edu>
>  | I would presume:
>  |
>  |  (> #i1/0 1e1000) => #f
>
> Okay.  (number->string 1e1000) ==> #i+/0
> If you meant #e1e1000, then the answer should be #t.

yes I meant #e1e1000, which implies you'd advocate:

  (> #i1e400 #e1e1000) => #t

which doesn't seem particularly reasonable, given that it's false,
(and honestly can't see how it can be rationalized as being otherwise).

nor does (inexact->exact #i1/0) => 1e306 [or whatever] seem reasonable
unless you propose that (- #i1/0 1) :: (- 1e306 1), thereby #1/0 merely
represents the greatest magnitude inexact value, which all values greater
than saturate to. Thereby an exact infinity would correspondingly represent
the greatest representable exact value, which all corresponding greater
values saturate to as well.

Candidly, I don't any reasonable way for exact and inexact representations
to have the same infinite limit value, unless their value ranges are
correspondingly defined as being equivalent, which typically isn't the case.