From: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Message-Id: <199906110725.JAA09883@mars.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject: Re: libm sources from cyberoptics
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com (DJGPP-WORKERS)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:25:41 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Nate said:
> their views on trigraphs).  There certainly seems to be some
> mathematical justification and support for 0^0=1, as for instance in the
> FAQ I mentioned.

Oh no, there isn't (in the FAQ you mentioned).

It says it make sense to define it as 1, because of some other mathematical
theorems.

While I agree, that for that case it _does_ make sense to define it like
that. Alas, they don't know (yet) what other cases it would make sense to 
define it as 3.

But the main objection is that mathematically it is undefined. It's not 
good to limit your perpective (which will hinder further exploration and 
letting the next generation grow up with the notion that 0^0=1 because
the standard says it is).

Finally does it matter? What behaviour does those who use it (in real life
programming) want? Does it make it easier or more difficult for them if we
_do_ define it as 1?


Right,

							MartinS