- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:25:14 +0100
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On 4 Jul 2008, at 16:09, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Jul 4, 2008, at 11:07 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote: > >> Because the floats are lexicographically ordered that means that >> if we increment the representation of a float as an integer then >> we move to the next float.... > > Not if the next one is NaN. NaN isn't in the sequence. In particular, I believe that all comparisons with NaNs are false (including equality). Thus the datatype >NaN is *necessarily* empty. As is =NaN, actually. To test for NaNness, you need a special predicate. > Not every bit sequence in the floats corresponds to a number. The sequences representing numbers do, and they are lexicographically ordered. You don't need to consider NaN when computing interval sizes. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Friday, 4 July 2008 16:22:59 UTC