Luis, there are two threads about this topic in the sage-newbie group (with the name "0^0 undefined" and "wow 0^0 shure is inconsistent in sage") which i think should adress your doubts, I'm not the expert here, but I have a practical application concerning combinatorial sums where it's assumed for 0^0 to be 1, and I guess in most applications it's like this, apart from the fact that in most other Computer Algebra Systems it's defined this way. If it would not be defined at all, I would have to do a workaround like a conditional "if" or a "try" statement to handle this case. So I think it's good to define it at all. Maybe it would be a good idea to have the possibility as a user to temporary redefine it, but this would also bear the risk of inconsistency among all the different number types of sage (and python).
> sage: lim(x^(1/log(x)),x=0,dir='above') > _2 = e > > If one actually defines a function and sage tries to compute, can't it > spill out 1 if it gets 0^0, when it might not be the case... I'm not shure if I understand what your mean, I don't see a problem here, keep in mind that the limit value of a function at a certain point is completly independent of the function value of this function at this point, there even does not have to exist a function value at all at this certain point, these notions (limit value and function value) at a certain point are completely independent, so the implementation of the function lim must not depend on the function value. Georg --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
