[seqfan] Re: Without any discussion

[Joerg Arndt]

* N. J. A. Sloane <njas at research.att.com> [Sep 01. 2009 12:31]:
> it is an impossible question, since the answer is "undefined",
> which is not a number
> 
> NJAS

Well known (maybe not in sci.math).

I have seen many instances of expressions
with the additional "where we take 0^0 to be 1",
and not a single one where 0^0 was set to 0
(or anything different from 1).

The reason may be that those expressions tend to be
multiplicate in nature where 0^0 is usually taken
as the the empty product.

Let's see what the computer says (computers are
always right as we all know):

% gp
? 0^0
1
? 0.0^0.0
  ***   gpow: 0 to a non positive exponent.

% sage
sage: 0^0
1
sage: 0.0^0.0
1.00000000000000

C/C++: pow(0.0, 0.0) returns 1.0

% python
>>> 0**0
1
>>> 0.0**0.0
1.0

% echo 'print( 0**0 );' | ruby
1
% echo 'print( 0.0**0.0 );' | ruby
1.0

% echo 'print 0**0 ;' | perl
1
% echo 'print 0.0**0.0 ;' | perl
1

... so 1 wins  8-))


Could anyone try Lisp and (gasp!) FORTRAN?