> From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Thank you. In essence, I've intentionally defined the question of x^y's
> | value about x=y->0 as a constrained "bivariate" function, to where only
> | the direction, not the relative rate of the argument's paths are ambiguous,
> | as I believe that when the numerical representation system has no provision
> | to express their relative rates of convergence, they should be assumed to be
> | equivalent;
>
> You're seriously mistaken. In lack of any further knowledge, one should not
> assume anything particular. Which is reflected in LIA-2's rationale.
> You just don't know anything about the rate of the arguments.
I guess I'd simply contend that the value of a function about any point
in the absents of further formal constraints should be assumed to represent
it's static value about that point i.e. lim{|v|->1/inf) f(x+v, y+v, ...)
And reserve the obligation for applications requiring the calculation
of formally parameterized multi-variate functions at boundary limits to
themselves; rather than burdening either uses of such functions with
arguably less useful Nan results.
But understand, that regardless of my own opinion; it's likely more
important that a function produces predicable results, regardless of
their usefulness on occasion. (which is the obligation of the committees
to hopefully decide well)
