Author tim.peters
Recipients Devin Jeanpierre, cvrebert, ezio.melotti, facundobatista, josh.r, mark.dickinson, rhettinger, skrah, steven.daprano, tim.peters, vstinner
Date 2015-01-10.03:08:16
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1420859297.53.0.428154241776.issue23201@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
This is easy:  Cowlishaw is wrong on this one, but nothing can be done about it ;-)

Confusion arises because most people think of 0**0 as a value (where it certainly must be 1) while others seem to view it as some kind of shorthand for expressing a limit (as the base and/or exponent _approach_ 0, in which case there is no correct answer - it's an "indeterminate form").

It's in the "spirit of 754" to take inputs at face value, viewing them as infinitely precise.  So viewing 0**0 as anything other than 1 in this context is perverse.

Centuries of history distilled to a few paragraphs here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Zero_to_the_power_of_zero
History
Date User Action Args
2015-01-10 03:08:17tim.peterssetrecipients: + tim.peters, rhettinger, facundobatista, mark.dickinson, vstinner, Devin Jeanpierre, ezio.melotti, steven.daprano, cvrebert, skrah, josh.r
2015-01-10 03:08:17tim.peterssetmessageid: <1420859297.53.0.428154241776.issue23201@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015-01-10 03:08:17tim.peterslinkissue23201 messages
2015-01-10 03:08:16tim.peterscreate