Phillip Gawlowski wrote in post #963815:
> The IEEE standard, however, does *not* define how mathematics work.
> Mathematics does that. In math, x_0/0 is *undefined*. It is not
> infinity...

What psychological anomaly causes creationists keep saying that there
are no transitional fossils even after having been shown transitional
fossils? We might pass it off as mere cult indoctrination or
brainwashing, but the problem is a more general one.

We also see it happening here in Mr. Gawlowski who, after being given
mathematical facts about infinity, simply repeats his uninformed
opinion.

"The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled
person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but
their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize
their mistakes." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect)

Here is my initial response to Mr. Gawlowski. Let's see if he ignores
it again (as a creationist ignores transitional fossils).

> It is perfectly reasonable, mathematically, to assign infinity to
> 1/0.  To geometers and topologists, infinity is just another
> point. Look up the one-point compactification of R^n. If we join
> infinity to the real line, we get a circle, topologically. Joining
> infinity to the real plane gives a sphere, called the Riemann
> sphere. These are rigorous definitions with useful results.
>
> I'm glad that IEEE floating point has infinity included, otherwise I
> would run into needless error handling. It's not an error to reach
> one pole of a sphere (the other pole being zero).
>
> Infinity is there for good reason; its presence was well-considered
> by the quite knowledgeable IEEE designers.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.