MathGroup Archive 2009

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

Search the Archive

Re: Re: confused about == vs === in this equality

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg103777] Re: [mg103750] Re: [mg103732] confused about == vs === in this equality
  • From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at>
  • Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:17:29 -0400 (EDT)
  • References: <20091003104738.LCJ3I.416659.imail@eastrmwml34> <>

On 5 Oct 2009, at 20:36, danl at wrote:

> he decision, which I believe only goes back a few versions, was to  
> also
> treat infinities in that way. From a mathematical point of view this  
> makes
> sense, and it may well be useful in the innards of some Limit code in
> avoiding what would be incorrect cancellations. (Though I have  
> worked on
> that code, I do not recall all specifics, but I think we always  
> carefully
> guarded against this.)

This does not seem to be quite true, at least not for all infinities.

Infinity == Infinity


I think this is reasonable as in a certain sense there is "only one"  
positive real infinity. Similarly:
DirectedInfinity[I] == DirectedInfinity[I]


and so on. So, I think, as I wrote in my other message in this thread,  
it is probably the case that DirectiedInfinity[] and Indeterminate are  
the only symbols with this property.

I completely agree with the behaviour of Indeterminate but still have  
some doubts about DirectedInfinity[] and would like to see an example  
where having equality return true would cause some sort of problem or  

Andrzej Kozlowski

  • Prev by Date: Re: Paper heading: does not work?
  • Next by Date: using fourier transforms in mathematica
  • Previous by thread: Re: confused about == vs === in this equality
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: confused about == vs === in this equality