On 24.06.2016 08:11, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 05:22:11AM +0200, Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
(BTW: It would be fine with me if 0.0^^0.0 was NaN -- that's a
completely different case than the one at hand: pow on integers.)
That's even worse. So 0^0=1 if 0 is regarded as an integer, and 0^0=NaN
if 0 is regarded as a real?
A 'double'.
That's even more horrible than my
(admittedly not very good) argument that 0^0 should not be 1.
...
0.0^^0 should certainly be 1, so I do think it makes sense to have
0.0^^0.0 = 1 too.
[...]
(Also note that the 'laws of physics' typically give rise to piecewise
analytic functions, and if you only consider analytic functions, 0 ^ 0
= 1 is actually the right answer.)
Are you sure about this? ...
rinconmatematico.com/foros/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=61041.0;attach=10948
