Mark Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 12, 11:15 am, Arnaud Delobelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> But exp(y*log(x)) -> 1 as (x, y) -> (0, 0) along any analytic curve
>> which is not the x=0 axis (I think at least - it seems easy to prove
>> that given f and g analytic over R, f(x)
Lou Pecora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Mark Dickinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On May 11, 9:36 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> |> Do you have in mind any s
On May 12, 11:15 am, Arnaud Delobelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But exp(y*log(x)) -> 1 as (x, y) -> (0, 0) along any analytic curve
> which is not the x=0 axis (I think at least - it seems easy to prove
> that given f and g analytic over R, f(x)*ln g(x) -> 0 as x -> 0 if
> f(0)=g(0)=0 and g(x)>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mark Dickinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 11, 9:36 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |> Do you have in mind any situations in which it is advantageous to have
>
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am stunned that this simple misunderstanding of mine ended in a
> mathematical clash of a sort. :) You guys really blew me away wih
> your mathematical knowledge. And also the 0**0 is a thing I've never
> thought about trying, until n
On 12 May, 15:21, Mark Dickinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 12, 2:09 am, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Then it seems equally dubious that 0.**y, y>0, should be well-defined.
> > It seems to me that lim as x goes to 0. exp(y*log(x)) is equally well
> > defined whether y is
On May 12, 2:09 am, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then it seems equally dubious that 0.**y, y>0, should be well-defined.
> It seems to me that lim as x goes to 0. exp(y*log(x)) is equally well
> defined whether y is 0 or not, even though there is a discontinuity in the
> limit.
Well,
"Mark Dickinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 11, 9:36 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> Do you have in mind any situations in which it is advantageous to have
0**0
|> undefined?
| (Playing devil's advocate here.) If you regard x**y as exp(y*l
On May 11, 9:36 pm, "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you have in mind any situations in which it is advantageous to have 0**0
> undefined?
(Playing devil's advocate here.) If you regard x**y as exp(y*log(x))
then it's not at all clear that 0.**0. should be considered
well-defined. And
"Tim Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| >
| >I am stunned that this simple misunderstanding of mine ended in a
| >mathematical clash of a sort. :) You guys really blew me away wih
| >your mathematical knowledge. And also the 0**0 is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>I am stunned that this simple misunderstanding of mine ended in a
>mathematical clash of a sort. :) You guys really blew me away wih
>your mathematical knowledge. And also the 0**0 is a thing I've never
>thought about trying, until now that is. If the mathematical rule
On 2008-05-11, Max M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
>
>> I have two another interesting things to discuss about, for
>> which I'll open new posts on this group. Look for "Python
>> doesn't recognize quote types" and "Python, are you ill?".
>
> You have a tendency to form your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:
I have two another interesting things to discuss about, for which I'll
open new posts on this group. Look for "Python doesn't recognize quote
types" and "Python, are you ill?".
You have a tendency to form your questions as complaints about Python
being broken.
You w
On May 10, 9:56 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have two another interesting things to discuss about, for which I'll
> open new posts on this group. Look for "Python doesn't recognize quote
> types" and "Python, are you ill?".
Hi,
You might try making your titles a little more descriptive to hel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|I am stunned that this simple misunderstanding of mine ended in a
| mathematical clash of a sort. :) You guys really blew me away wih
| your mathematical knowledge. And also the 0**0 is a thing I've never
| thought about trying, until
I am stunned that this simple misunderstanding of mine ended in a
mathematical clash of a sort. :) You guys really blew me away wih
your mathematical knowledge. And also the 0**0 is a thing I've never
thought about trying, until now that is. If the mathematical rule is
that EVERYTHING raised to th
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Lou Pecora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> | "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | > "Luis Zarrabeitia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
"Lou Pecora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
| "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > "Luis Zarrabeitia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| > | Btw, there seems to be a math problem in python with
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Luis Zarrabeitia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | Btw, there seems to be a math problem in python with exponentiation...
> | >>> 0**0
> | 1
> | That 0^0 should be a nan or exception, I g
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Have a look at this:
> >
> -123**0
> > -1
> >
> >
> > The result is not correct, because every number (positive or negative)
> > raised to the power of 0 is ALWAYS 1 (a positive number
Dan Bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 8, 6:14 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thursday 08 May 2008 06:54:42 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > The problem is that Python parses -123**0 as -(123**0), not as
>> > (-123)**0.
>>
>> Actually, I've always written it as (
Quoting Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Luis Zarrabeitia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Weird, I can't find neither... (which wikipedia article? Couldn't find one
> about
> > C99.)
>
> Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Zero_to_the_zero_power
Than
On May 8, 11:28�pm, "Ian Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Luis Zarrabeitia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > �Weird, I can't find neither... (which wikipedia article? Couldn't find one
> > about
> > �C99.)
>
> Tryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Zero_to_
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Luis Zarrabeitia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Weird, I can't find neither... (which wikipedia article? Couldn't find one
> about
> C99.)
Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Zero_to_the_zero_power
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Quoting Christian Heimes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Luis Zarrabeitia schrieb:
> 0**0
> > 1
> >
> > That 0^0 should be a nan or exception, I guess, but not 1.
>
> No, that's correct for floats. Read the wikipedia article or the C99
> standard for more information.
Weird, I can't find neither..
On May 8, 6:14 pm, Luis Zarrabeitia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 May 2008 06:54:42 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The problem is that Python parses -123**0 as -(123**0), not as
> > (-123)**0.
>
> Actually, I've always written it as (-123)**0. At least where I'm from,
> exponentiat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have a look at this:
-123**0
-1
The result is not correct, because every number (positive or negative)
raised to the power of 0 is ALWAYS 1 (a positive number 1 that is).
The problem is that Python parses -123**0 as -(123**0), not as
(-123)**0.
I suggest making th
"Luis Zarrabeitia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Btw, there seems to be a math problem in python with exponentiation...
| >>> 0**0
| 1
| That 0^0 should be a nan or exception, I guess, but not 1.
a**b is 1 multiplied by a, b times. 1 multiplied by 0 no times is 1
Luis Zarrabeitia schrieb:
0**0
> 1
>
> That 0^0 should be a nan or exception, I guess, but not 1.
No, that's correct for floats. Read the wikipedia article or the C99
standard for more information.
Christian
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On May 8, 6:10 pm, Nicolas Dandrimont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-08 15:54:42 -0700]:
>
> > Have a look at this:
>
> > >>> -123**0
> > -1
>
> > The result is not correct, because every number (positive or negative)
> > raised to the power of 0 is AL
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-08 15:54:42 -0700]:
> Have a look at this:
>
> >>> -123**0
> -1
>
>
> The result is not correct, because every number (positive or negative)
> raised to the power of 0 is ALWAYS 1 (a positive number 1 that is).
>
> The problem is that Python par
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The problem is that Python parses -123**0 as -(123**0), not as
> (-123)**0.
As explicitly defined in the language reference, the "negative"
operator has lower binding precedence than the "power" operator
http://www.python.org/doc/ref/summary.html>.
> I suggest making
On Thursday 08 May 2008 06:54:42 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The problem is that Python parses -123**0 as -(123**0), not as
> (-123)**0.
Actually, I've always written it as (-123)**0. At least where I'm from,
exponentiation takes precedence even over unary "-". (to get a power of -123,
you mus
Ahem... That should have been:
(negate (pow 123 0))
Using parenthesis to indicate precedence order of ops:
-(123 ^ 0)
The "-" you are using is not part of the number. It's a unary operator
that negates something. In normal order of operations, it has a much
lower priority than power.
Your p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Have a look at this:
>
-123**0
> -1
>
>
> The result is not correct, because every number (positive or negative)
> raised to the power of 0 is ALWAYS 1 (a positive number 1 that is).
No python is correct. you're expression parses this way, when converted
to a li
Have a look at this:
>>> -123**0
-1
The result is not correct, because every number (positive or negative)
raised to the power of 0 is ALWAYS 1 (a positive number 1 that is).
The problem is that Python parses -123**0 as -(123**0), not as
(-123)**0.
I suggest making the Python parser omit the n
36 matches
Mail list logo
