Sender: nate AT cartsys DOT com
Message-ID: <375ECB49.A0D09309@cartsys.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 13:15:05 -0700
From: Nate Eldredge <nate AT cartsys DOT com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.10 i586)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: libm sources from cyberoptics
References: <199906090818 DOT KAA09460 AT mars DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Martin Stromberg wrote:
> 
> Eric said:
> 
> > In particular, though the prevailing consensus is that 0^0 should be defined
> > as 1, my decision to raise EDOM for pow(0., 0.) was based on the fact that
> > it is mathematically-indeterminate.
> 
> Well, as lim(x^0) = 1, in one way it does make sense to define 0^0 = 1,
>          x->0+
> 
> however the behaviour of lim(x^0) isn't as clearcut (from my cursory
>                          x->0-
> 
> examination).
> 
> _If_ lim(x^0) = 1,  then I would say 0^0 should be defined as 1,
>      x->0-
> 
> but right now this isn't clear to me.

There is an interesting discussion in the sci.math FAQ.

ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/sci/math/sci.math_FAQ%3A_What_is_0%5E0%3F

The conclusion is that 0^0 should equal 1, but some disagree.
-- 

Nate Eldredge
nate AT cartsys DOT com