On Oct 22, 5:11 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well like it or not, it is a fact that 0.0^0.0 = 1 *is* the official > ISO 99 standard. Note that ISO = "international standards > organization". > > I'm not making an argument here for or against this. But there is no > arguing with it being an official standard as dictated by an > international standards organization for perhaps the worlds most > popular programming language (C/C++).
There is a question about whether we, as mathematicians, should automatically accept as standards something designated for use in a programming language. I know that Sage is a programming environment, but shouldn't it reflect mathematical truth, not computer programming standards? If the ISO established a standard which was more objectionable from a mathematical point of view, would we automatically adapt it? > I know nothing of why they made that choice. Yes. Quoting from the page you cited: "The following sections are informative. ... Rationale: None" :p --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
