On 14 July 2013 09:40, Serhiy Storchaka
13.07.13 00:55, Joshua Landau wrote:
On 12 July 2013 22:46, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
13.07.13 00:27, Joshua Landau wrote:
½ === 1/2; thus is an expression
0.5 === 5/10. Isn't it an expression?
No. That's like saying "1 === 2/2". There is a much more obvious equivalence between two ways of writing "1/2" than between two ways of displaying the result of "1/2".
0.5 is 5/10 by definition. The result of 1/2 is a fraction ½.
I don't understand. What are you trying to say?
Plus, why on earth would you use recurrence for floats? Give me a use case. There's a good reason for float infinity.
This is only a way to spell a general fraction in decimal. On other hand, ∞ is even not a real number.
That's not a use-case.
The informal definition for "expression" with regards to int and float I'm using is basically the measure of how much more parsing code would need to be implemented.
½ requires no more parsing code then ∞.
Au contraire, if you accept ½ you are bound by law to accept all of the other fractions -- that's much more code than just allowing ∞.
If you accept ∞ you are bound by law to accept ½ and all of the other fractions — and that's much more code than just allowing ∞.
I was afraid that people would go and take this too literally. But either way, if you accept ½ and reject ¾, you have made a really bad design decision. If you accept ∞ and reject ½, the atrocity of that decision is much less. I would say it's a good choice, you may say it is bad. But if you say those are equivalently bad decisions you're simply wrong and there's not much more I can say.