> On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 02:45:10PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Thomas Lockhart writes:
> >
> > > Keep in mind that he is a mathematician, and I'll guess that he won't
> > > have much patience with folks who expect a result for a factorial of a
> > > fractional number ;)
> >
> > Real mathematicians will be perfectly happy with a factorial for a
> > fractional number, as long as it's properly and consistently defined. ;-)
> >
> > Seriously, there is a well-established definition of factorials of
> > non-integral real numbers, but the current behaviour is probably the most
> > intuitive for the vast majority of users.
>
> I would be happy with with exp(lgamma(x+1)) as a synonym for x!
> (So 4.3!=38.078 as far as I'm concerned :) )
Yes, gamms is the standard for non-integer factorial but we don't
implement it that way. :-)
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
