[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Re: Infinity vs DirectedInfinity[1]

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg70543] Re: [mg70489] Infinity vs DirectedInfinity[1]
• From: "Chris Chiasson" <chris at chiasson.name>
• Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:22:06 -0400 (EDT)
• References: <200610180816.EAA07979@smc.vnet.net> <45362BB8.9080006@wolfram.com>

Carl Woll

This is the conclusion I came to after talking with Andrzej Kozlowski
(I also posted about it -- though it won't go out until tomorrow
because I sent it maybe an hour ago)

What I find interesting is that Andrzej said you would probably reply
and that I would then have a definitive answer.

Thank you.

P.S. One interesting question that came up when we were emailing
off-list was: "How was formatting done before the box formatting
system was introduced?"


On 10/18/06, Carl Woll <carlw at wolfram.com> wrote:
> Chris Chiasson wrote:
>
> >Infinity is a symbol, as far as I know. However, in FullForm it is
> >shown as the equivalent DirectedInfinity[1].
> >
> >Is there some kind of MakeBoxes rule for FullForm that makes Infinity
> >show up that way?
> >
> >
> >
> Actually, when evaluated, Infinity is converted to DirectedInfinity[1].
> This is like when I is converted to Complex[0,1]. Compare:
>
> FullForm[Hold[Infinity]]
> Hold[Infinity]
>
> and
>
> FullForm[Infinity]
> DirectedInfinity[1]
>
> On the other hand, DirectedInfinity[d] has formatting rules for
> InputForm, StandardForm and TraditionalForm that cause it to be
> displayed as Sign[d] Infinity when d is +/-1 or +/-I.
>
> Carl Woll
> Wolfram Research
>


-- 
http://chris.chiasson.name/

• References:
  • Infinity vs DirectedInfinity[1]
    • From: "Chris Chiasson" <chris@chiasson.name>