2006/3/21, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Henrik Sundberg wrote: > > I think it is strange to be this pedantic about 0^0, and not care > > about math at all when it comes to normal cases like this. Are we > > looking for compatibility with Microsoft or math?
"this" above was referring to "-(A1-B1)^2 is not resolved to -((A1-B1)^2) instead it seems to be (-(A1-B1))^2". The snipping made the meaning disappear. I think this case is more important. > I am a mathematecian, and not exactly a Microsoft fan. So I'll vote for > math of course (and I can get very pedantic about this). Though, in the > case of 0^0 math doesn't provide an unambiguous answer because in the > strictest sense 0^0 doesn't make sense. In some (not all) instances it > is convenient (not required) to define it (notice, a definition) as 1. > > I think that defining it as 1 for Calc will hurt more people than > defining it as an error. Our opinions differ. Fair enough. Seems like we focused on different parts of the, in my eyes well written, discussion at http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci-math-faq/specialnumbers/0to0/ > One alternative is: If a cell ever gets 0^0 Calc makes it 1 the way you > want, but the user gets a pop-up warning him of this fact. And possibly > giving him the option of changing that behaviour, or not show the > warning again (like Firefox does with encrypted sites). No. Imagine you send a spreadsheet using this to someone. Do you intend to supply a document specifying "click No when a dialog asks for 0^0 handling"? Or should the option be per spreadsheet? Or should it be handled with style (bad joke...)? I.e. using a "0^0=1" style for the field? In the Firefox case you get the needed information in the dialog. This case is not the same. /$ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
