On 6/14/19 7:15 AM, R Smith wrote: > > On 2019/06/14 4:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/13/19 10:51 AM, R Smith wrote: >>> On 2019/06/13 4:44 PM, Doug Currie wrote: >>>>> Except by the rules of IEEE (as I understand them) >>>>> >>>>> -0.0 < 0.0 is FALSE, so -0.0 is NOT "definitely left of true zero" >>>>> >>>> Except that 0.0 is also an approximation to zero, not "true zero." >>>> >>>> Consider that 1/-0.0 is -inf whereas 1/0.0 is +int >>> >>> I do not know if this is the result case in any of the programming >>> languages, but in Mathematical terms that is just not true. >>> >>> 1/0.0 --> Undefined, doesn't exist, cannot be computed, Should error >>> out. Anything returning +Inf or -Inf is plain wrong. >>> I posit the same holds true for 1/-0.0 >> Yes, 1.0/0.0 is undefined in the Field of Real numbers, but IEEE isn't >> the field of Real Numbers. First, as pointed out, it has limited >> precision, but secondly it have values that are not in the field of Real >> Numbers, namely NaN and +/-Inf. >> >> Note, that with a computer, you need to do SOMETHING when asked for >> 1.0/0.0, it isn't good to just stop (and traps/exceptions are hard to >> define for general compution systems), so defining the result is much >> better than just defining that anything could happen. It could have been >> defined as just a NaN, but having a special 'error' value for +Inf or >> -Inf turns out to be very useful in some fields. > > I wasn't advocating to do something weird when the value -0.0 exists > in memory - the display of that is what the greater idea behind this > thread is[**]. > > What I was objecting to, is claiming (in service of suggesting the > use-case for -0.0), that the mathematical result of 1/-0.0 IS in fact > "-Inf" and so computers should conform, when it simply isn't, it's an > error and SHOULD be shown so. Neither is the mathematical result of > 0/-1 = -0.0. It simply isn't mathematically true (or rather, it isn't > distinct from 0.0), and I maintain that any system that stores -0.0 as > the result of the computation of 0/-1 is simply doing so by virtue of > the computational method handling the sign-bit separate from the > division and being able to store it like so by happenstance of IEEE754 > allowing -0.0 as a distinct value thanks to that same sign bit, and > not because it ever was mathematically necessary to do so. > > I'll be happy to eat my words if someone can produce a mathematical > paper that argued for the inclusion of -0.0 in IEEE754 to serve a > mathematical concept. It's a fault, not a feature. > > > [** As to the greater question of representation - In fact I'm now a > bit on the fence about it. It isn't mathematical, but it does help > represent true bit-data content. I'm happy with it both ways.]
I was pointing out that it depends on WHICH type of mathematics you are talking about what is the proper result of 1/0. If you have your mind wrapped around the idea the 'Floating Point' == 'Real Numbers', then it doesn't make sense, but it is a best a rough approximation, expressing not all of the Reals, but also expressing some things that are outside the domain of the Reals. A simple example, 1.0 / 3.0 * 3.0 - 1.0 should be exactly 0.0 in the domain of real numbers. It will NOT be in the domain of Floating Point numbers (because 1.0 / 3.0 can not be exactly represented). You can't even say the results will be 'close' to zero, as there is no expressible tolerance based just on the final expected answer, as you could replace the 1.0 with a billion, or a billionth, and get very different values, all of which would need to be considered 'close'. My understanding is that IEEE COULD have defined 1/0 as NaN instead, but there were significant areas of numerical calculation where remembering the infinity, and then using the fact that n / inf is 0 gave meaningful answers in some cases. (or the atan(inf) = pi/2). -- Richard Damon _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
