Re: 0^0
- From: Dave Seaman <dseaman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 03:25:01 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:57:22 GMT, Ben Crain wrote:
> It appears to me that the most appropriate way to define 0^0 is exactly
> the same as x^0, for any nonzero x, namely, 1. I note that many hand
> calculators report 0^0 as "undefined" or "indeterminate". I don't hold
> that against them -- they are designed for practical use, and I can't
> imagine a practical use in which 0^0 would ever arise. More
> sophisticated software packages, however, must take a stand on 0^0.
> According to my tests: Maple reports 0^0 = 1, Matlab reports 0^0 = 1,
> but Mathematica reports 0^0 = indeterminate. That distresses me, since
> I'm a big fan of Mathematica. Why is Mathematica the odd-man-out on
> this one? Are they justified in being so?
Mathematica does insist on calling 0^0 "Indeterminate" rather than, say,
"Undefined", despite the fact that (a) "Indeterminate" is an adjective
that applies to limit expressions, (b) Mathematica understands limit
expressions as part of the language, and (c) 0^0 is not a limit
expression in Mathematica, since the word "Limit" does not appear in it.
I once reported this as a bug, way back when Mathematica was a fairly new
product. They seemed unwilling to consider the notion that a function
may be defined at a point and yet be discontinuous there, even when I
gave the Sign function as an example in Mathematica.
--
Dave Seaman
Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling.
<http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
.
- References:
- 0^0
- From: Ben Crain
- 0^0
- Prev by Date: Re: Cardinality of Real Numbers
- Next by Date: Re: infinity
- Previous by thread: 0^0
- Next by thread: Re: 0^0
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
