Jacques Carette answer to Lennart Augustsson's comment of:
Such people have the nasty habit of also thinking that ALL
functions are continuous! You might think they were constructivists
or something.
Why would a constructivist think that all functions are continuous?
That would be a theorem o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you think that constructivists are against +0 /= -0?
Because they can't prove it - either way.
Or that they think that all functions are continuous?
[See previous email] Because all constructible functions are provably
continuous.
Do you think that Per Martin-LÃf wo
Lennart Augustsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jacques Carette wrote:
> Such people have the nasty habit of also thinking that ALL
> functions are continuous! You might think they were constructivists or
> something.
Why would a constructivist think that all functions are continuous?
It makes no
"Jacques Carette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since +0 and -0 both exist as separate 'entities' (as computer bits),
> which are their own normal form, the real question to ask is, why
> would they be equal?
Because (1.0 - 1.0) == -(1.0 - 1.0) should be true. In general
arithmetic on integers wh
Jacques Carette wrote:
Anyone who thinks that +0 = -0 has never wrestled with a branch cut (and
lost...). Such people have the nasty habit of also thinking that ALL
functions are continuous! You might think they were constructivists or
something.
Why would a constructivist think that all funct
Jacques Carette writes:
Anyone who thinks that +0 = -0 has never wrestled with a branch cut (and
lost...). Such people have the nasty habit of also thinking that ALL
functions are continuous! You might think they were constructivists or
something.
HmHmHm...
Why do you think that constructivists a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could also argue that a function which distinguishes between +0 and -0
doesn't respect "semantic equality" of Float and Double. Your task, should
you choose to accept it, is to define what the semantics of equality
actually are for IEEE 754 floats. :-)
Anyone who think
On Monday 09 May 2005 11:45 am, you wrote:
> On 07 May 2005 11:59, Dominic Steinitz wrote:
> > Does anyone know why these are in the IO monad? Aren't they pure
> > functions converting between dotted-decimal strings and a 32-bit
> > network byte ordered binary value?
> >
> > Dominic.
>
> http://www
Hello Greg,
Friday, May 13, 2005, 12:47:54 AM, you wrote:
GB> Samuel Bronson wrote:
>> After thinking about it for a while, I'm positive it would be a LOT of
>> work to get that to work in general, if it is even possible. Even
>> getting it to work in only specific, limited cases (such as within
