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

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

David Carlton <david.carlton@sun.com> writes:

| On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:54:03 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> said:
| > Vincent Lefevre <vincent+gcc@vinc17.org> writes:
| > | On 2005-03-10 01:01:18 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| > | > The asseryion that 0^0 is mathematically undefined is not a bogus
| > | > reason. It is a fact.
| > | 
| > | I disagree. One can mathematically define 0^0 as 1. One often does
| > | this.
| 
| > what you do is to set a local convention regardless of all
| > mathematical absurdities you run into.
| 
| No, you follow the convention that all mathematicians that I know of
| follow, because it's generally recognized as the most useful one.

Please given references -- not just unnamed mathematicians you claim
to know.  

To some extent, I already quoted the disposition of LIA-2 -- language
independent arithmetic, part 2.

| Maybe there are mathematical subcultures in which a different
| convention (or no convention) is followed; I haven't spent time in
| such cultures.  But if it's a "local convention", then it's one for a
| very large value of "local".

Please consider the limit of x^y when you have both x and y go to
zero.  

Also, consider the LIA-2 disposition I alresdy provided.

-- Gaby