This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
Hi Florian,
> From a mathematical point of view, 0^0 = 1 is the more convenient one
> in most contexts. Otherwise, you suddenly lack a compact notation of
> polynomials (and power series). However, this definition is only used
> in a context were the exponent is an integer, so it's not really
> relevant to the current discussion.
if you restrict the domain of x^y to: x>=0 (real), y an integer >=0,
and (x,y) not equal to zero, then there is a unique limit as (x,y)
converges to zero, namely 1. So this is an example of extending by
continuity.
Ciao,
Duncan.
- References:
- __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))