[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: 0^0 = ?
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
RE: 0^0 = ? |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:51:28 -0600 |
On 13-Nov-2003, address@hidden <address@hidden> wrote:
| I know that by L'Htpital's Rule you should get:
|
| ln(y)=x*ln(x) = ln(x)/(1/x) so
|
| Lim x->0+ ln(x)/(1/x) = ( 1/x )/( -1/( x^2)) =
|
| Lim x->0+ (-x) = 0
| so ln(y) = 0 and then y=1.
|
| Maybe this is the reason for the behavior?
The 0^0 == 1 behavior is part of the IEEE 754 standard for floating
point arithmetic. The paper "What every computer scientist should
know about floating point arithmetic" by David Goldberg provides a
rationale for the behavior that is a bit different than above (it's at
the end of a section titled "ambiguity"). To start with, I think you
need to look at this as y^x, not x^x. A quick google search should
turn up a copy of the paper if you want the details.
jwe
-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.
Octave's home on the web: http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects: http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information: http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
- 0^0 = ?, Cong, 2003/11/12
- RE: 0^0 = ?, j . e . drews, 2003/11/13
- RE: 0^0 = ?,
John W. Eaton <=
- RE: 0^0 = ?, Mike Miller, 2003/11/13
- RE: 0^0 = ?, Randy Gober, 2003/11/14
- RE: 0^0 = ?, Mike Miller, 2003/11/14
- RE: 0^0 = ?, Randy Gober, 2003/11/14
- RE: 0^0 = ?, Mike Miller, 2003/11/14
- RE: 0^0 = ?, Randy Gober, 2003/11/13
- RE: 0^0 = ?, Boud Roukema, 2003/11/14
- RE: 0^0 = ?, John W. Eaton, 2003/11/14
- Re: 0^0 = ?, Geraint Paul Bevan, 2003/11/14
- RE: 0^0 = ?, Ted Harding, 2003/11/14