Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))

[Marcin Dalecki <martin at dalecki dot de>]

On 2005-03-08, at 01:14, Robert Dewar wrote:

> Marcin Dalecki wrote:
> > On 2005-03-07, at 17:16, Chris Jefferson wrote:
> > > | This is why there is no reasonable
> > > | mathematical value for 0^0.
> > > |
> > >
> > > That is true.
> > It's not true because it's neither true nor false. It's a not well
> > formulated statement. (Mathematically).
>
> I disagree with this, we certainly agree that 0.0 ** negative value
> is undefined, i.e. that this is outside the domain of the ** function,
> and I think normally in mathematics one would say the same thing,
> and simply say that 0**0 is outside the domain of the function.

It's not a matter of reason it's a matter of definition. Thus the
statement "This is why there is no reasonable mathematical value for 0^0
is neither true nor false", has the same sense as saying that... well 
for example:
"rose bears fly very high". Just a random alliteration of terms not a 
statement and
thus neither true nor false because the concept of decisibility  
doesn't apply.