__builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Ronny Peine <RonnyPeine@gmx.de> writes:

| Hi,
| 
| Kai Henningsen wrote:
| > dewar@adacore.com (Robert Dewar)  wrote on 07.03.05 in <422CFBA7.8080001@adacore.com>:
| >
| >>Ronny Peine wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >>>Sorry for this, maybe i should sleep :) (It's 2 o'clock here)
| >>>But as i know of 0^0 is defined as 1 in every lecture i had so far.
| >>
| >>Were these math classes, or CS classes.
| > Let's just say that this didn't happen in any of the German math
| > classes I  ever took, school or uni. This is in fact a classic
| > example of this type  of behaviour.
| >
| >>Generally when you have a situation like this, where the value of
| >>the function is different depending on how you approach the limit,
| >>you prefer to simply say that the function is undefined at that
| >>point.
| > And that's how it was always taught to me.
| 
| Well yes, in the general case this is the right way. But for some
| special cases a definition is used to simplify mathematical sentences
| as it is done for 0^0 = 1 or gcd(0,0,...,0) = 0. See for example:
| http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ExponentLaws.html

For _integer_ exponentiation function, pretty much everybody agrees on
the convention 0^0 = 1.  The issue is radically different for *real*
exponentiation. 

-- Gaby