3 ms·
what about 0 * instead of 2 * ? On one hand by the viral property it would seem to also be unequal? On the other hand having zero NaN is something every equat
by logicallee 9y ago
what about 0 * instead of 2 * ? On one hand by the viral property it would seem to also be unequal? On the other hand having zero NaN is something every equation already has :D it seems fair to silently remove a 0 * NaN term.
- Retra 9y ago"0 * NaN" makes as much sense as "0 * Blue". It's NaN because you're trying to do something that is fundamentally not multiplication.
- logicallee 9y agothanks - makes sense and is a clear explanation.
- mturmon 9y agoIt's not fair to remove 0 * NaN. NaN will come up when doing Inf - Inf But clearly: 0 * (Inf - Inf) cannot be said to be zero. NaN really is not a number.
- hermitdev 9y agoIIRC, but I don't have the IEEE spec in front of me, any operation, binary or unary, that has an operand of NaN shall have the result of NaN.