Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > 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, ...)
That is menaingless.
A floating point system is a projection on a discrete base set, as a
consequence when you compute a value, you almost always don't get an
element in that set: You need to make projection. Consistency predictable
|
| 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 that is nnot
|
| 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)
--
Gabriel Dos Reis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
