[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] Complex numbers with inexact zero imaginary part, etc
From: |
Mark H Weaver |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] Complex numbers with inexact zero imaginary part, etc |
Date: |
Wed, 02 Feb 2011 16:36:34 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) |
Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
>> (scm_difference): (- 0 0.0) now returns -0.0. Previously it returned
>> 0.0. Also make sure that (- 0 0.0+0.0i) will return -0.0-0.0i.
>
> Is this right? I can convince myself both ways.
I'm not 100% confident, but I'm pretty sure it's the right thing.
As far as I can tell, the semantics of the signed zeroes are based on
one-sided limits, so (f 0.0) aka (f +0.0) should be the limit of (f x)
as x approaches zero from the right, similarly for (f -0.0) except
approaching from the left. (f +inf.0) and (f -inf.0) should also be
defined in terms of limits. I don't know how this is handled when more
than one of these special values is present in the operand list.
As for the rules of when to return 0.0 vs -0.0, I'm not sure. IEEE 754
certainly produces -0.0 when a negative number underflows, but -0.0 is
returned in more cases than that. For example, there is no underflow
for (+ -0.0 -0.0) or (- 0.0). Based on the rules I know about, the
pattern seems to be that if the operation is defined in terms of a limit
(i.e. if +0.0, -0.0, +inf.0, or -inf.0 appears as an operand), and the
result of the operation is known to approach zero from the left, then
-0.0 is returned, otherwise 0.0 is returned.
In this case, (- 0 0.0) can be defined as the limit of (- 0 x) as x
approaches zero from the right, in which case the result approaches zero
from the left.
Another argument is that some Schemes apparently take the position that
an inexact zero is "weaker" than an exact 0, for example by evaluating
(/ 0 0.0) => 0, as pointed out by Aubrey Jaffer in the "Division by
zero" section of:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/III/RAWI
In any case, the R6RS explicitly gives these examples, which are widely
accepted rules for the signed zeroes:
(- 0.0) ==> -0.0
(- 0.0 0.0) ==> 0.0
Therefore, if we decide that (- 0 0.0) should be 0.0 instead of -0.0,
then you'll have to change the compiler to no longer change (- x) to
(- x 0).
Best,
Mark
- [PATCH] Complex numbers with inexact zero imaginary part, etc, Mark H Weaver, 2011/02/02
- Re: [PATCH] Complex numbers with inexact zero imaginary part, etc, Andy Wingo, 2011/02/02
- Re: [PATCH] Complex numbers with inexact zero imaginary part, etc, Andy Wingo, 2011/02/02
- Re: [PATCH] Complex numbers with inexact zero imaginary part, etc,
Mark H Weaver <=
- Re: [PATCH] Complex numbers with inexact zero imaginary part, etc, Andy Wingo, 2011/02/02