>>> (define (min n1 n2)
>>> (cond [(<= n1 n2) n1]
>>> [else n2]))
>>
>> What's wrong with this is that, mathematically, since 1e100 is inexact,
>> we're not CERTAIN it's>= 0, so the "proper" answer to (<= n1 n2) is not true
>> but rather almost-certainly-true. (An "inexact Boolean", if you will....)
>>
>> When you define the function as above, the "<=" takes its best guess as to
>> which number is really smaller and pretends that the answer is certain.
>
> Then what is the correct definition?
I guess if you wanted to be really pedantic (and get the same answer as the
built-in min produces), you could say
(define (min n1 n2)
(let ((naive-min (if (<= n1 n2) n1 n2)))
(if (and (exact? n1) (exact? n2))
naive-min
(exact->inexact naive-min))))
Stephen Bloch
sbl...@adelphi.edu
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
