[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: 0^0 = ?
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
RE: 0^0 = ? |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:58:27 -0600 |
On 14-Nov-2003, (Ted Harding) <address@hidden> wrote:
| Clearly, 0^0 is mathematically indeterminate.
|
| [...]
|
| I don't think we'll ever get them to agree!
Then I think it would probably be best to try to conform to the
standards of other languages (hoping that there is some uniformity in
their behavior). My justification for this is that systems like
Octave mix languages (Octave, C/C++, Fortran) and so it is generally
bad if the scripting language does things differently from one or more
of the compiled languages.
Unfortunately, sometimes this causes Matlab compatibility problems.
For example, Matlab defines 1^Inf to return NaN, but ISO C99
apparently defines 1^y to always return 1, even if y is NaN.
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
-------------------------------------------------------------
- RE: 0^0 = ?, (continued)
- 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
- RE: 0^0 = ?,
John W. Eaton <=
- RE: 0^0 = ?, Mike Miller, 2003/11/14