implementation categories, exact rationals
Aubrey Jaffer
(14 Oct 2005 18:29 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals
John.Cowan
(14 Oct 2005 19:26 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals
Aubrey Jaffer
(14 Oct 2005 19:38 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals John.Cowan (14 Oct 2005 20:16 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals
bear
(16 Oct 2005 18:08 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals
Michael Sperber
(17 Oct 2005 07:44 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals
Aubrey Jaffer
(17 Oct 2005 21:59 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals
Bradley Lucier
(17 Oct 2005 22:07 UTC)
|
Re: implementation categories, exact rationals John.Cowan 14 Oct 2005 20:16 UTC
Aubrey Jaffer scripsit: > | > A case could be made if (expt -26. 1/3) returned -2.9624960684073702; > | > but I know of no Scheme implementation that does so. > | > | Why would that be desirable? > > Because it is the cube root of -26. A better example is: > (expt -27 1/3) ==> -3 -3 is *a* cube root of 27, but not the *principal* cube root. Consider the third part of Quux's Tripartite Acceptance Test: 1) the value of T is T (or in Scheme, of #t is #t) 2) the value of (/ (factorial 1000) (factorial 999)) is 1000 (given the usual iterative definition of factorial) 3) the value of (atanh -2) is a complex number (if it is the right complex number, approximately -0.54930615+1.5707964i, so much the better) -- Andrew Watt on Microsoft: John Cowan Never in the field of human computing xxxxxx@reutershealth.com has so much been paid by so many http://www.ccil.org/~cowan to so few! (pace Winston Churchill) http://www.reutershealth.com