*To*: debian-devel@lists.debian.org*Cc*: "Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net>*Subject*: Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-*From*: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>*Date*: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:10:46 +0200*Message-id*: <87zmdym02h.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>*In-reply-to*: <20060821165124.GA9375@capsaicin.mamane.lu>*References*: <20060808235835.GA19278@lapse.madduck.net> <87mzae1a7d.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <44DBBD7B.8020909@teco.edu> <20060810232940.GA6592@chistera.yi.org> <20060810234736.GG17235@miami.connexer.com> <20060811004253.GD26527@hezmatt.org> <20060821165124.GA9375@capsaicin.mamane.lu>

* Lionel Elie Mamane: > Well, I have found one. Myself. You just have to interpret the part > after the second point as the integer part of an infinitesimal: > > Let ε be an infinitesimal, that is a strictly positive number > (that is ε > 0) smaller than any strictly positive real number > (that is ∀ n ∈ ℕ, n>0 implies ε < 1/n ). Such a number does not exist because every set of reals which has a lower bound has a real number as its infimum. (Of course, such arithmetic structures can be defined, but it's a lot more involved than that.) > Then the version number x.y.z is interpreted as: > > x.y + z * ε > > (And a.b.c.d is interpreted as a.b + c.d * ε) In this context, it does not make much sense to allow only non-negative integers for z, so your interpretation is anything but natural and as good as any other total odering.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-***From:*Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel@mamane.lu>

**References**:**Re: dak now supports ~ in version numbers***From:*Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>

**dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now supports ~ in version numbers]***From:*Michael Biebl <biebl@teco.edu>

**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now supports ~ in version numbers]***From:*Adeodato Simó <dato@net.com.org.es>

**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now supports ~ in version numbers]***From:*"Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net>

**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now supports ~ in version numbers]***From:*Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org>

**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now supports ~ in version numbers]***From:*Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel@mamane.lu>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Please comment the license of vim manual and reference** - Next by Date:
**BSP Marathon / BSP in Vienna 8. - 10. September** - Previous by thread:
**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?- [was: dak now supports ~ in version numbers]** - Next by thread:
**Re: dpkg doing wrong math (0.09 = 0.9) ?-** - Index(es):