[Numpy-discussion] Re: numpy, overflow, inf, ieee, and rich , comparison
Alex Martelli
aleaxit at yahoo.com
Fri Oct 27 18:39:49 EDT 2000
- Previous message (by thread): [Numpy-discussion] Re: numpy, overflow, inf, ieee, and rich , comparison
- Next message (by thread): [Numpy-discussion] Re: numpy, overflow, inf, ieee, and rich , comparison
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
"Johann Hibschman" <johann at physics.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:mtu29y11ip.fsf at astron.berkeley.edu...
[snip]
> By the way, what is the logic behind "-1/-3 = 0"? That just seems
> broken. -1/3 = -1, so we should have -1/-3 = 1. If division were
> defined that way, we could simply let % give the least positive
> residue, and everyone would be happy.
>
> Is there any situation in which you would want -1/-3 = 0?
There are many nice properties you might like integer
division to have; unfortunately, they're self contradictory
en masse -- you can't have them all at once.
For example, for any non-null integers a,b,c, we might
like to have
a/b == (a*c)/(b*c)
right? After all, we can see algebraically that the factors
of c in numerator and denominator simplify out...
Well, what happens if a=1, b=3, and c=-1, then?-)
Alex
- Previous message (by thread): [Numpy-discussion] Re: numpy, overflow, inf, ieee, and rich , comparison
- Next message (by thread): [Numpy-discussion] Re: numpy, overflow, inf, ieee, and rich , comparison
- Messages sorted by:
[ date ]
[ thread ]
[ subject ]
[ author ]
More information about the Python-list
mailing list