[#4595] New block syntax — Daniel Amelang <daniel.amelang@...>

I'm really sorry if this isn't the place to talk about this. I've

25 messages 2005/03/21
[#4606] Re: New block syntax — "David A. Black" <dblack@...> 2005/03/21

Hi --

[#4629] Re: New block syntax — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/03/30

On Monday 21 March 2005 16:17, David A. Black wrote:

[#4648] about REXML::Encoding — speakillof <speakillof@...>

Hi.

15 messages 2005/03/31
[#4659] Re: about REXML::Encoding — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...> 2005/04/04

On Thursday 31 March 2005 09:44, speakillof wrote:

Re: 0**0==1?

From: Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@...>
Date: 2005-03-19 13:00:57 UTC
List: ruby-core #4588
Bertram Scharpf <lists@bertram-scharpf.de> writes:

> Hi,
>
> this is difficult to feed Google with:
>
>>> 0**0
> => 1
>>> 0**0.0
> => 1.0
>>> 0.0**0
> => 1.0
>>> 0.0**0.0
> => 1.0
>>> 
>
> Shouldn't the result be a NaN?

Interesting... Perl and Python say 0**0 is 1, Maxima (that should know
better) says 0 but generates an error...

To quote http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExponentLaws.html:

> The definition 0**0=1 is sometimes used to simplify formulas, but it
> should be kept in mind that this equality is a definition and not a
> fundamental mathematical truth (Knuth 1992; Knuth 1997, p. 56).

> Bertram
-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen@gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org

In This Thread