Dear adventurers of math! (was Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0)))

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 15:26 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <vincent+gcc@vinc17.org> writes:
> 
> | On 2005-03-12 02:59:46 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > You probably noticed that in the polynomial expansion, you are using
> | > an integer power -- which everybody agrees on yield 1 at the limit.
> | > 
> | > I'm tlaking about 0^0, when you look at the limit of function x^y
> | > -- which is closer to cpow() tgan powi().  Did you miss that?
> | 
> | When one uses the power notation in mathematics, one (almost) never
> | says when the context is a function R x R -> R or R x Z -> R or
> | whatever.
> 
> That is (almost) absolutely false.
> 
> | The problem is the same in ISO C99 (and probably other
> | languages),
> 
> Other languages do make the distinction.  That C99 did not have the
> syntax for that is a defect rather than virtue. Examples have been
> provided, but I guess you prefer to ignore them.
> 
> -- Gaby

As much fun as it is to get random messages on the gcc mailing list
about how much you guys know or don't know about math, its
implementation in gcc, etc, I believe this particular topic has gone so
far afield of anything related to gcc that you should probably set up
your own "c99-pow-0^0-x^y.vs.x^x-math-arguers" mailing list for it.


--Dan