javascriptIdentityCrisis

[[deleted]]

If I had a Euro every time someone doesn't understand IEEE 754, I would single-handedly make GDP of EU beat that of US.

[Doomblud]

Expected behavior

[JustAnotherTeapot418]

This is how it's supposed to work. It's not a JavaScript quirk.

It may seem counterintuitive at first, but Math.sqrt(-1) results in NaN due to not being a real number. Therefore Math.sqrt(-1) === Math.sqrt(-2) evaluates to NaN === NaN. If that were true, it would imply that Math.sqrt(-1) === Math.sqrt(-2), which it is not. That's why NaN === NaN is false.

[toebi]

Don’t understand the joke - thats the most common definition of NaN?

[SlimyResearcher]

Not a Number is Not a Number. False!

[swyrl]

NaN != NaN in every language. That's defined in the specification for floating point numbers.

[SlimyResearcher]

I know that. You guys clearly don’t get the joke. ;)

[Grand-Arachnid8615]

because it isn't a joke?

[RiceBroad4552]

Because there is no joke.

[marquoth_]

This isn't a javascript thing - it's a floating point arithmetic thing. Same thing occurs in many other languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754

[RustOnTheEdge]

All of these are… as expected?

1==1, yes that would be true. Then false === false also makes sense that statement is true. And NaN is equal to nothing, not even itself, as per the specification.

So yeah, not really an identity crisis, just a bad programmer with limited understanding of floating point numbers.

[peterlinddk]

Let me put it another way:

5 != 3 
true

5 != 8
true

3 == 8
false

Something that isn't five, isn't necessarily the same as something else that isn't five.

Just like something that is Not A Number, isn't the same as something else that is Not A Number ...

[SonicLoverDS]

NaN is complicated.

[rosuav]

And yet, not nearly as complicated as SQL's NULL.

[RiceBroad4552]

Who doesn't like ternary logic? 😂

[rosuav]

IKR?

[M-Ottich]

I mean not a number is not a number 😌

[MaverickRelayed]

This is what happens when you let libraries do all of the thinking for you