From: Deane Yang (deane_yang_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-17 12:11:57
Paul A Bristow wrote:
> | Paul Bristow wrote
> | > That is indeed the *intention* - but entirely USER-DEFINED
> | and with NO MATH
> | > MEANING.
> | >
> | > NaNs are never > < or == anyway?
> | But it tells you where how you got there doesnt it?
> Maybe - but this is getting OT - the topic was Octonionic Not-A-Numbers ;-)
Is this really off-topic? I've seen everyone assert that -nan has no
mathematical meaning. Does this mean that there is no pfficial
specification (whether it is "mathematically meaningful" or not) of how
a -nan can arise as a result of an arithmetic operation?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk