Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
tax question for accountants
Re: tax question for accountants
Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
news:t9ak14dhq4hc11nhpg161jsb752tsprrn1@4ax . com :
> Does it bother you that the accepted answer for 0^^0 (zero raised to
> the zeroth power) " ... is based on convenience, not on correctness."?
I'm not really bothered, since I don't do combinatorics. And
the combinatorics people are using the "convenient" definition
to shorten formulae. As long as we understand the context,
it's not a problem. It is, of course, more fun to analyze
the value in a particular setting, than to just leave 0^0 as
a special case.
We shouldn't be misled by the statement you quote. There _is
no_ correct value for 0^0, so convenience is the only path.
B.(See? I enjoyed that.)
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
news:t9ak14dhq4hc11nhpg161jsb752tsprrn1@4ax . com :
> Does it bother you that the accepted answer for 0^^0 (zero raised to
> the zeroth power) " ... is based on convenience, not on correctness."?
I'm not really bothered, since I don't do combinatorics. And
the combinatorics people are using the "convenient" definition
to shorten formulae. As long as we understand the context,
it's not a problem. It is, of course, more fun to analyze
the value in a particular setting, than to just leave 0^0 as
a special case.
We shouldn't be misled by the statement you quote. There _is
no_ correct value for 0^0, so convenience is the only path.
B.(See? I enjoyed that.)
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Re: tax question for accountants
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
>news:t9ak14dhq4hc11nhpg161jsb752tsprrn1@4ax . com :
>
>
>> Does it bother you that the accepted answer for 0^^0 (zero raised to
>> the zeroth power) " ... is based on convenience, not on correctness."?
>
>I'm not really bothered, since I don't do combinatorics. And
>the combinatorics people are using the "convenient" definition
>to shorten formulae. As long as we understand the context,
>it's not a problem. It is, of course, more fun to analyze
>the value in a particular setting, than to just leave 0^0 as
>a special case.
>
>We shouldn't be misled by the statement you quote. There _is
>no_ correct value for 0^0, so convenience is the only path.
>
>B.(See? I enjoyed that.)
IM(non mathematician)O, I would say it should be the special case of
(null). Any number zero times would be null.
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
>news:t9ak14dhq4hc11nhpg161jsb752tsprrn1@4ax . com :
>
>
>> Does it bother you that the accepted answer for 0^^0 (zero raised to
>> the zeroth power) " ... is based on convenience, not on correctness."?
>
>I'm not really bothered, since I don't do combinatorics. And
>the combinatorics people are using the "convenient" definition
>to shorten formulae. As long as we understand the context,
>it's not a problem. It is, of course, more fun to analyze
>the value in a particular setting, than to just leave 0^0 as
>a special case.
>
>We shouldn't be misled by the statement you quote. There _is
>no_ correct value for 0^0, so convenience is the only path.
>
>B.(See? I enjoyed that.)
IM(non mathematician)O, I would say it should be the special case of
(null). Any number zero times would be null.
Re: tax question for accountants
Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
news:9kdk14dk4aqgst2bb052n4u4jdvn8m5550@4ax . com :
> IM(non mathematician)O, I would say it should be the special case of
> (null). Any number zero times would be null.
That won't square with the formulae we have for exponents.
5^7 / 5^4 = 5^(7-4) = 5^3. We want 5^7 / 5^7 to be = 1.
So by the usual formula, 5^7/5^7 = 5^(7-7) = 5^0. So I'm
sorely tempted to define 5^0 = 1.
Also, I'd like the graph of y=2^x to be continuous. It will
be, if I define 2^0 = 1.
The general philosophy is that an empty sum = 0, while an
empty product = 1. This makes sense because an empty sum
means "I didn't add anything." So if A represents an empty
sum, then 5+A ought to = 5, since "I didn't add anything".
This makes us think A = 0. Likewise, if B represents an
empty product, then 5*B should = 5, since I didn't multiply
by anything. So I need B = 1.
Since 5^0 means "I didn't multiply by 5", I need it to =1.
Similar reasoning is why 0! = 1.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
news:9kdk14dk4aqgst2bb052n4u4jdvn8m5550@4ax . com :
> IM(non mathematician)O, I would say it should be the special case of
> (null). Any number zero times would be null.
That won't square with the formulae we have for exponents.
5^7 / 5^4 = 5^(7-4) = 5^3. We want 5^7 / 5^7 to be = 1.
So by the usual formula, 5^7/5^7 = 5^(7-7) = 5^0. So I'm
sorely tempted to define 5^0 = 1.
Also, I'd like the graph of y=2^x to be continuous. It will
be, if I define 2^0 = 1.
The general philosophy is that an empty sum = 0, while an
empty product = 1. This makes sense because an empty sum
means "I didn't add anything." So if A represents an empty
sum, then 5+A ought to = 5, since "I didn't add anything".
This makes us think A = 0. Likewise, if B represents an
empty product, then 5*B should = 5, since I didn't multiply
by anything. So I need B = 1.
Since 5^0 means "I didn't multiply by 5", I need it to =1.
Similar reasoning is why 0! = 1.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Re: tax question for accountants
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
>news:9kdk14dk4aqgst2bb052n4u4jdvn8m5550@4ax . com :
>
>
>> IM(non mathematician)O, I would say it should be the special case of
>> (null). Any number zero times would be null.
>
>That won't square with the formulae we have for exponents.
>
>5^7 / 5^4 = 5^(7-4) = 5^3. We want 5^7 / 5^7 to be = 1.
>So by the usual formula, 5^7/5^7 = 5^(7-7) = 5^0. So I'm
>sorely tempted to define 5^0 = 1.
>
>Also, I'd like the graph of y=2^x to be continuous. It will
>be, if I define 2^0 = 1.
>
>The general philosophy is that an empty sum = 0, while an
>empty product = 1. This makes sense because an empty sum
>means "I didn't add anything." So if A represents an empty
>sum, then 5+A ought to = 5, since "I didn't add anything".
>This makes us think A = 0. Likewise, if B represents an
>empty product, then 5*B should = 5, since I didn't multiply
>by anything. So I need B = 1.
>
>Since 5^0 means "I didn't multiply by 5", I need it to =1.
>
>Similar reasoning is why 0! = 1.
>
>B.
I can see your reasoning, and I don't argue with it. But as a
programmer, (null) and (0) are 2 different things. I went through all
kinds of bloody hell trying to get my "manager" to grasp this concept,
so it kind of rings my bell.
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
>news:9kdk14dk4aqgst2bb052n4u4jdvn8m5550@4ax . com :
>
>
>> IM(non mathematician)O, I would say it should be the special case of
>> (null). Any number zero times would be null.
>
>That won't square with the formulae we have for exponents.
>
>5^7 / 5^4 = 5^(7-4) = 5^3. We want 5^7 / 5^7 to be = 1.
>So by the usual formula, 5^7/5^7 = 5^(7-7) = 5^0. So I'm
>sorely tempted to define 5^0 = 1.
>
>Also, I'd like the graph of y=2^x to be continuous. It will
>be, if I define 2^0 = 1.
>
>The general philosophy is that an empty sum = 0, while an
>empty product = 1. This makes sense because an empty sum
>means "I didn't add anything." So if A represents an empty
>sum, then 5+A ought to = 5, since "I didn't add anything".
>This makes us think A = 0. Likewise, if B represents an
>empty product, then 5*B should = 5, since I didn't multiply
>by anything. So I need B = 1.
>
>Since 5^0 means "I didn't multiply by 5", I need it to =1.
>
>Similar reasoning is why 0! = 1.
>
>B.
I can see your reasoning, and I don't argue with it. But as a
programmer, (null) and (0) are 2 different things. I went through all
kinds of bloody hell trying to get my "manager" to grasp this concept,
so it kind of rings my bell.
Re: tax question for accountants
"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
news:gegk14505tg34jne4746hjllos6ov5gc8q@4ax . com ...
> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>
>>Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
>>news:9kdk14dk4aqgst2bb052n4u4jdvn8m5550@4ax . com :
>>
>>
>>> IM(non mathematician)O, I would say it should be the special case of
>>> (null). Any number zero times would be null.
>>
>>That won't square with the formulae we have for exponents.
>>
>>5^7 / 5^4 = 5^(7-4) = 5^3. We want 5^7 / 5^7 to be = 1.
>>So by the usual formula, 5^7/5^7 = 5^(7-7) = 5^0. So I'm
>>sorely tempted to define 5^0 = 1.
>>
>>Also, I'd like the graph of y=2^x to be continuous. It will
>>be, if I define 2^0 = 1.
>>
>>The general philosophy is that an empty sum = 0, while an
>>empty product = 1. This makes sense because an empty sum
>>means "I didn't add anything." So if A represents an empty
>>sum, then 5+A ought to = 5, since "I didn't add anything".
>>This makes us think A = 0. Likewise, if B represents an
>>empty product, then 5*B should = 5, since I didn't multiply
>>by anything. So I need B = 1.
>>
>>Since 5^0 means "I didn't multiply by 5", I need it to =1.
>>
>>Similar reasoning is why 0! = 1.
>>
>>B.
>
> I can see your reasoning, and I don't argue with it. But as a
> programmer, (null) and (0) are 2 different things. I went through all
> kinds of bloody hell trying to get my "manager" to grasp this concept,
> so it kind of rings my bell.
Testing, Check 1 2
"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
news:gegk14505tg34jne4746hjllos6ov5gc8q@4ax . com ...
> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>
>>Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
>>news:9kdk14dk4aqgst2bb052n4u4jdvn8m5550@4ax . com :
>>
>>
>>> IM(non mathematician)O, I would say it should be the special case of
>>> (null). Any number zero times would be null.
>>
>>That won't square with the formulae we have for exponents.
>>
>>5^7 / 5^4 = 5^(7-4) = 5^3. We want 5^7 / 5^7 to be = 1.
>>So by the usual formula, 5^7/5^7 = 5^(7-7) = 5^0. So I'm
>>sorely tempted to define 5^0 = 1.
>>
>>Also, I'd like the graph of y=2^x to be continuous. It will
>>be, if I define 2^0 = 1.
>>
>>The general philosophy is that an empty sum = 0, while an
>>empty product = 1. This makes sense because an empty sum
>>means "I didn't add anything." So if A represents an empty
>>sum, then 5+A ought to = 5, since "I didn't add anything".
>>This makes us think A = 0. Likewise, if B represents an
>>empty product, then 5*B should = 5, since I didn't multiply
>>by anything. So I need B = 1.
>>
>>Since 5^0 means "I didn't multiply by 5", I need it to =1.
>>
>>Similar reasoning is why 0! = 1.
>>
>>B.
>
> I can see your reasoning, and I don't argue with it. But as a
> programmer, (null) and (0) are 2 different things. I went through all
> kinds of bloody hell trying to get my "manager" to grasp this concept,
> so it kind of rings my bell.
Testing, Check 1 2
Re: tax question for accountants
"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
news:gegk14505tg34jne4746hjllos6ov5gc8q@4ax . com ...
> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>
>>Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
>>news:9kdk14dk4aqgst2bb052n4u4jdvn8m5550@4ax . com :
>>
>>
>>> IM(non mathematician)O, I would say it should be the special case of
>>> (null). Any number zero times would be null.
>>
>>That won't square with the formulae we have for exponents.
>>
>>5^7 / 5^4 = 5^(7-4) = 5^3. We want 5^7 / 5^7 to be = 1.
>>So by the usual formula, 5^7/5^7 = 5^(7-7) = 5^0. So I'm
>>sorely tempted to define 5^0 = 1.
>>
>>Also, I'd like the graph of y=2^x to be continuous. It will
>>be, if I define 2^0 = 1.
>>
>>The general philosophy is that an empty sum = 0, while an
>>empty product = 1. This makes sense because an empty sum
>>means "I didn't add anything." So if A represents an empty
>>sum, then 5+A ought to = 5, since "I didn't add anything".
>>This makes us think A = 0. Likewise, if B represents an
>>empty product, then 5*B should = 5, since I didn't multiply
>>by anything. So I need B = 1.
>>
>>Since 5^0 means "I didn't multiply by 5", I need it to =1.
>>
>>Similar reasoning is why 0! = 1.
>>
>>B.
>
> I can see your reasoning, and I don't argue with it. But as a
> programmer, (null) and (0) are 2 different things. I went through all
> kinds of bloody hell trying to get my "manager" to grasp this concept,
> so it kind of rings my bell.
Nulls and 0's are different because the machine needs to treat them
differently. A null is a nothing, a 0 is a value. Which is why computer
start counting from 0.
Paul
"Mickey" <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in message
news:gegk14505tg34jne4746hjllos6ov5gc8q@4ax . com ...
> Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>
>>Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
>>news:9kdk14dk4aqgst2bb052n4u4jdvn8m5550@4ax . com :
>>
>>
>>> IM(non mathematician)O, I would say it should be the special case of
>>> (null). Any number zero times would be null.
>>
>>That won't square with the formulae we have for exponents.
>>
>>5^7 / 5^4 = 5^(7-4) = 5^3. We want 5^7 / 5^7 to be = 1.
>>So by the usual formula, 5^7/5^7 = 5^(7-7) = 5^0. So I'm
>>sorely tempted to define 5^0 = 1.
>>
>>Also, I'd like the graph of y=2^x to be continuous. It will
>>be, if I define 2^0 = 1.
>>
>>The general philosophy is that an empty sum = 0, while an
>>empty product = 1. This makes sense because an empty sum
>>means "I didn't add anything." So if A represents an empty
>>sum, then 5+A ought to = 5, since "I didn't add anything".
>>This makes us think A = 0. Likewise, if B represents an
>>empty product, then 5*B should = 5, since I didn't multiply
>>by anything. So I need B = 1.
>>
>>Since 5^0 means "I didn't multiply by 5", I need it to =1.
>>
>>Similar reasoning is why 0! = 1.
>>
>>B.
>
> I can see your reasoning, and I don't argue with it. But as a
> programmer, (null) and (0) are 2 different things. I went through all
> kinds of bloody hell trying to get my "manager" to grasp this concept,
> so it kind of rings my bell.
Nulls and 0's are different because the machine needs to treat them
differently. A null is a nothing, a 0 is a value. Which is why computer
start counting from 0.
Paul
Re: tax question for accountants
Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
news:gegk14505tg34jne4746hjllos6ov5gc8q@4ax . com :
> I can see your reasoning, and I don't argue with it. But as a
> programmer, (null) and (0) are 2 different things. I went through all
> kinds of bloody hell trying to get my "manager" to grasp this concept,
> so it kind of rings my bell.
I think even in programming you might want to be careful. One
day you might want null and another day 1 and another day
use continuity considerations.
If you represent a polynomial or power series in the computer
equivalent of sigma notation, you have something like
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n x^n.
Then the constant term is a_0 x^0, and you'd sure want to be
able to plug in 0 for x. If 0^0 evaluates to null here, then
your loop might blow up when your evaluating the sum.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
news:gegk14505tg34jne4746hjllos6ov5gc8q@4ax . com :
> I can see your reasoning, and I don't argue with it. But as a
> programmer, (null) and (0) are 2 different things. I went through all
> kinds of bloody hell trying to get my "manager" to grasp this concept,
> so it kind of rings my bell.
I think even in programming you might want to be careful. One
day you might want null and another day 1 and another day
use continuity considerations.
If you represent a polynomial or power series in the computer
equivalent of sigma notation, you have something like
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n x^n.
Then the constant term is a_0 x^0, and you'd sure want to be
able to plug in 0 for x. If 0^0 evaluates to null here, then
your loop might blow up when your evaluating the sum.
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Re: tax question for accountants
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
>news:gegk14505tg34jne4746hjllos6ov5gc8q@4ax . com :
>
>
>> I can see your reasoning, and I don't argue with it. But as a
>> programmer, (null) and (0) are 2 different things. I went through all
>> kinds of bloody hell trying to get my "manager" to grasp this concept,
>> so it kind of rings my bell.
>
>
>I think even in programming you might want to be careful. One
>day you might want null and another day 1 and another day
>use continuity considerations.
>
>If you represent a polynomial or power series in the computer
>equivalent of sigma notation, you have something like
>
>\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n x^n.
>
>Then the constant term is a_0 x^0, and you'd sure want to be
>able to plug in 0 for x. If 0^0 evaluates to null here, then
>your loop might blow up when your evaluating the sum.
>
>B.
Under some circumstances, you'd be correct. In this particular case,
we were talking about test results for dialysis patients. NULL meant
no test result, because "0" could have been a valid result.
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
>Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
>news:gegk14505tg34jne4746hjllos6ov5gc8q@4ax . com :
>
>
>> I can see your reasoning, and I don't argue with it. But as a
>> programmer, (null) and (0) are 2 different things. I went through all
>> kinds of bloody hell trying to get my "manager" to grasp this concept,
>> so it kind of rings my bell.
>
>
>I think even in programming you might want to be careful. One
>day you might want null and another day 1 and another day
>use continuity considerations.
>
>If you represent a polynomial or power series in the computer
>equivalent of sigma notation, you have something like
>
>\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n x^n.
>
>Then the constant term is a_0 x^0, and you'd sure want to be
>able to plug in 0 for x. If 0^0 evaluates to null here, then
>your loop might blow up when your evaluating the sum.
>
>B.
Under some circumstances, you'd be correct. In this particular case,
we were talking about test results for dialysis patients. NULL meant
no test result, because "0" could have been a valid result.
Re: tax question for accountants
In article <Xns9A91ACF6D1C85goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.91>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> The general philosophy is that an empty sum = 0, while an
> empty product = 1. This makes sense because an empty sum
> means "I didn't add anything." So if A represents an empty
> sum, then 5+A ought to = 5, since "I didn't add anything".
> This makes us think A = 0. Likewise, if B represents an
> empty product, then 5*B should = 5, since I didn't multiply
> by anything. So I need B = 1.
>
> Since 5^0 means "I didn't multiply by 5", I need it to =1.
Another way to think of it is that 0 is the "identity number" for
addition, while 1 is the "identity number" for multiplication & powers.
X + 0 = X
X * 1 = X
X ^ 1 = X
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <Xns9A91ACF6D1C85goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.91>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> The general philosophy is that an empty sum = 0, while an
> empty product = 1. This makes sense because an empty sum
> means "I didn't add anything." So if A represents an empty
> sum, then 5+A ought to = 5, since "I didn't add anything".
> This makes us think A = 0. Likewise, if B represents an
> empty product, then 5*B should = 5, since I didn't multiply
> by anything. So I need B = 1.
>
> Since 5^0 means "I didn't multiply by 5", I need it to =1.
Another way to think of it is that 0 is the "identity number" for
addition, while 1 is the "identity number" for multiplication & powers.
X + 0 = X
X * 1 = X
X ^ 1 = X
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Re: tax question for accountants
In article <Xns9A91A26087130goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.93>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
> news:t9ak14dhq4hc11nhpg161jsb752tsprrn1@4ax . com :
>
>
> > Does it bother you that the accepted answer for 0^^0 (zero raised to
> > the zeroth power) " ... is based on convenience, not on correctness."?
>
> I'm not really bothered, since I don't do combinatorics. And
> the combinatorics people are using the "convenient" definition
> to shorten formulae. As long as we understand the context,
> it's not a problem. It is, of course, more fun to analyze
> the value in a particular setting, than to just leave 0^0 as
> a special case.
>
> We shouldn't be misled by the statement you quote. There _is
> no_ correct value for 0^0, so convenience is the only path.
>
> B.(See? I enjoyed that.)
Isn't "undefined" (or, in computer jargon, "NaN") an alternate path?
This works for X/0...
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
In article <Xns9A91A26087130goddardbenetscapenet@64.209.0.93>,
Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net > wrote:
> Mickey <Mickey@NOSPAMFatHounds . com > wrote in
> news:t9ak14dhq4hc11nhpg161jsb752tsprrn1@4ax . com :
>
>
> > Does it bother you that the accepted answer for 0^^0 (zero raised to
> > the zeroth power) " ... is based on convenience, not on correctness."?
>
> I'm not really bothered, since I don't do combinatorics. And
> the combinatorics people are using the "convenient" definition
> to shorten formulae. As long as we understand the context,
> it's not a problem. It is, of course, more fun to analyze
> the value in a particular setting, than to just leave 0^0 as
> a special case.
>
> We shouldn't be misled by the statement you quote. There _is
> no_ correct value for 0^0, so convenience is the only path.
>
> B.(See? I enjoyed that.)
Isn't "undefined" (or, in computer jargon, "NaN") an alternate path?
This works for X/0...
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Re: tax question for accountants
Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
EEA274.18025501052008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>> We shouldn't be misled by the statement you quote. There _is
>> no_ correct value for 0^0, so convenience is the only path.
>>
>> B.(See? I enjoyed that.)
>
> Isn't "undefined" (or, in computer jargon, "NaN") an alternate path?
> This works for X/0...
Short answer is that "undefined" might be convenient is some situations.
The longer answer makes the distinction between "undefined" and
"indeterminant".
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@your-pants.PlayNaked . com > wrote in news:Misc-
EEA274.18025501052008@news.sf.sbcglobal . net :
>> We shouldn't be misled by the statement you quote. There _is
>> no_ correct value for 0^0, so convenience is the only path.
>>
>> B.(See? I enjoyed that.)
>
> Isn't "undefined" (or, in computer jargon, "NaN") an alternate path?
> This works for X/0...
Short answer is that "undefined" might be convenient is some situations.
The longer answer makes the distinction between "undefined" and
"indeterminant".
B.
--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
Re: tax question for accountants
On 1 May 2008 20:57:41 GMT, Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net >
wrote:
>We shouldn't be misled by the statement you quote. There _is
>no_ correct value for 0^0, so convenience is the only path.
>
>B.(See? I enjoyed that.)
huh? :-)
CigarBaron
(2 + 2 = ?)
On 1 May 2008 20:57:41 GMT, Bart Goddard <goddardbe@netscape . net >
wrote:
>We shouldn't be misled by the statement you quote. There _is
>no_ correct value for 0^0, so convenience is the only path.
>
>B.(See? I enjoyed that.)
huh? :-)
CigarBaron
(2 + 2 = ?)
Re: tax question for accountants
Marc Schneiderman wrote:
> huh? :-)
> CigarBaron
> (2 + 2 = ?)
Four for dinner, Morton's?
JJ
Marc Schneiderman wrote:
> huh? :-)
> CigarBaron
> (2 + 2 = ?)
Four for dinner, Morton's?
JJ
Re: tax question for accountants
On Fri, 02 May 2008 16:56:32 -0500, jeremy <jeremy@j-ellendesigns . com >
wrote:
>Marc Schneiderman wrote:
>
>> huh? :-)
>> CigarBaron
>> (2 + 2 = ?)
>
>Four for dinner, Morton's?
>
>JJ
Was there on Wed. but I'll go again anytime.
CigarBaron
On Fri, 02 May 2008 16:56:32 -0500, jeremy <jeremy@j-ellendesigns . com >
wrote:
>Marc Schneiderman wrote:
>
>> huh? :-)
>> CigarBaron
>> (2 + 2 = ?)
>
>Four for dinner, Morton's?
>
>JJ
Was there on Wed. but I'll go again anytime.
CigarBaron
Re: tax question for accountants
Marc Schneiderman wrote:
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 16:56:32 -0500, jeremy <jeremy@j-ellendesigns . com >
> wrote:
>
>> Marc Schneiderman wrote:
>>
>>> huh? :-)
>>> CigarBaron
>>> (2 + 2 = ?)
>>
>> Four for dinner, Morton's?
>>
>> JJ
>
>
> Was there on Wed. but I'll go again anytime.
> CigarBaron
can you still smoke at Morton's in Pit. or have they gotten on board with
most of the rest of the country...?
bernie..short memory
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
Marc Schneiderman wrote:
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 16:56:32 -0500, jeremy <jeremy@j-ellendesigns . com >
> wrote:
>
>> Marc Schneiderman wrote:
>>
>>> huh? :-)
>>> CigarBaron
>>> (2 + 2 = ?)
>>
>> Four for dinner, Morton's?
>>
>> JJ
>
>
> Was there on Wed. but I'll go again anytime.
> CigarBaron
can you still smoke at Morton's in Pit. or have they gotten on board with
most of the rest of the country...?
bernie..short memory
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
