| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Richard Wang <ruc_wang(at)hotmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] bug in numeric_power() function |
| Date: | 2008-05-07 22:22:05 |
| Message-ID: | 200805072222.m47MM5c04761@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > I have developed the attached patch which fixes 0 ^ 123.3.
>
> Did you actually read the wikipedia entry you cited?
Yes:
The evaluation of 0^0 presents a problem, because different mathematical
reasoning leads to different results. The best choice for its value
depends on the context. According to Benson (1999), "The choice whether
to define 00 is based on convenience, not on correctness."[2] There are
two principal treatments in practice, one from discrete mathematics and
the other from analysis.
...
The computer programming languages that evaluate 00 to be 1[8] include
J, Java, Python, Ruby, Haskell, ML, Scheme, MATLAB, bc, R programming
language, and Microsoft Windows' Calculator.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-05-07 22:32:21 | Re: [HACKERS] bug in numeric_power() function |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-05-07 22:22:03 | Re: [HACKERS] bug in numeric_power() function |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-05-07 22:32:21 | Re: [HACKERS] bug in numeric_power() function |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-05-07 22:22:03 | Re: [HACKERS] bug in numeric_power() function |