[R6RS] NaNs and infinities

[William D Clinger]

> > There are no infinite integers, in ordinary mathematical
> > usage or in the current draft of SRFI 77.
>
> Gosh.  So there really are no infinite integers and no infinite rationals?
> You're blowing my mind.  Next you'll probably tell me that there are no
> infinite reals either.
>
> I'll save you the trouble in the hopes of putting an end to this foolish
> banter: There are no infinite reals in ordinary mathematical usage.

I enjoy foolish banter.  We might as well entertain ourselves
(and the ultimate readers of this archive) while we figure this
out.

Anyway, the important part of of my statement was that there
are no infinite integers in the current draft of SRFI 77.
Although that blows your mind, I appreciate your endorsement
of infinite reals in SRFI 77.

> So drawing the line between rational? and real? makes no sense from
> a mathematical standpoint.

Ooh la la!

> I say +inf.0 and -inf.0 should either be
> integers (so justified because they represent the limits of a set of
> numbers that become integers long before they reach +inf.0 or -inf.0)
> or they shouldn't be rational?, real?, or complex?.

I apologize for mentioning mathematics in a discussion of
computer arithmetic, but an infinite sequence of integers
does not necessarily have an integral limit.

> Anyway, I've said my peace and will let you proceed as you see fit.

Okay.

Will