Xavier Noria fxn-at-hashref.com |Perl 6| wrote:
IMO to include something related to infinity you need to stick with
some particular model and forget the rest.
I couldn't have said it any better.
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Supporting multiple levels of infinities, transfinite numbers or even Surreal
Numbers should be considered in the same category of features as returning
multiple answers from complex trig functions.
They're an interesting thing to
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Will Coleda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 11:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Supporting multiple levels of infinities, transfinite numbers or even
Surreal Numbers should be considered in the same category of features as
returning multiple
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
As I recall, it can handle the concept of Inf-1 etc.
Yes. But the Hyperreals do the same and stay within the realm
of set theory.
I'm not sure. A quick reading indicates that ⋆ℝ contains infinitely large
numbers that maintain the
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:19 PM, John M. Dlugosz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure. A quick reading indicates that ⋆ℝ contains infinitely large
numbers that maintain the properties of addition, but that is not the same
as infinity.
Well *R is a field that has infinitely large and small
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
The proposed Infinite class (see the thread I started on 4/25/2008) does
handle transfinite cardinals.
Do you mean the thread called The Inf type where I replied to your
post of a version of your specdoc? My concern with the approach you take
there is to base it
Supporting multiple levels of infinities, transfinite numbers or even Surreal
Numbers should be considered in the same category of features as returning
multiple answers from complex trig functions.
They're an interesting thing to discuss and experiment with but shouldn't
distract form getting
HaloO,
Xavier Noria wrote:
IMO to include something related to infinity you need to stick with
some particular model and forget the rest.
Well spoken. But I think that the model John has chosen is a bit
too restrictive. If a type has a notion of Zero it could have a
similar notion of infinity
HaloO,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's just make sure we're handling inf and -inf right and leave all
that other stuff until later.
The point is: what is the minimum we need to be future proof
and compatible to other language features.
Regards, TSa.
--
The unavoidable price of reliability
HaloO,
I wrote:
That is you can do the usual
Int arithmetic in the ranges Inf..^Inf*2 and -Inf*2^..-Inf except
that Inf has no predecessor and -Inf no successor. Well, and we lose
commutativity of + and *. I.e. 1 + $a != $a + 1 if $a is transfinite.
Well, we can of course count downwards from
TSa Thomas.Sandlass-at-barco.com |Perl 6| wrote:
Firstly, shouldn't there also be infinite strings? E.g. 'ab' x Inf
is a regularly infinite string and ~pi as well. Other classes might
have elaborate notions of infinity.
A string whose length is Inf is not itself equal to Inf. But $s.chars
$b
HaloO,
John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Please let me know if you see any coding errors, and of course any
feedback is welcome.
Firstly, shouldn't there also be infinite strings? E.g. 'ab' x Inf
is a regularly infinite string and ~pi as well. Other classes might
have elaborate notions of infinity. The
This weekend I wrote http://www.dlugosz.com/Perl6/web/Infinity_romp.html which
explains the Inf features of Perl 6, but drills down each example to reach the
most fundamental language features, which it explains.
It should be interesting to those just taking the plunge to Perl 6 because so
13 matches
Mail list logo
