Or maybe the system that defines it have flaws. But again I have not devoted my life to proof it to direction or another, not that a single life would be enough. Where on earth I have come across the Paranoia pascal source....

Here? http://www.netlib.no/netlib/paranoia/paranoia.p

See also https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1985-02/1985_02_BYTE_10-02_Computing_and_the_Sciences pp223-235 (Nota bene: 627Mb file).

I've extracted the relevant pages of the Byte edition above to a PDF, but it still comes to 7.4Mb which is too large to upload here. If anybody actually wants it please say and I'll hide it on my company website.

MarkMLl

Oh, that was the one I was referring. Thanks. Need to try to compile it someday, just for curiosity. It is somewhat amusing that is was originally written in Basic, maybe just to make statement. Dr. Kahan seems a bit that kind of persona.

Now one or two beers later the calculations with undefined values can continue.

Then drop in the non-zero zero and assume that all infinities do have same revision number (so ∞=∞ and argument of non-division do not apply, think we overwrite some of the parent methods here)

A) 0.0^0 = 1/∞ / 1/∞

B) 1/∞//1/∞ = 1 /// 1/∞ // 1/∞

Lets rearrange the B as

B) 1/∞ * ∞/1 = 1 // 1/∞ * ∞/1

Sir!

Computing with infinity is forbidden.

Because as we all know:

Winni

So is computing with undefined results, makes no difference.

My notation was wrong as the infinity is sacred, maybe I should have (mis)used the ω as I did with o.

No I did specify exception, that addition operation would need to be revisioned to something like ∞_0 + 23 = ∞_23, which wouldn't fulfill the ∞=∞ as ∞_0 ≠ ∞_23. Same product number, different configuration. Makes one wonder can you make summation of known to infinity if infinity already contains everything.

Hi!

One can create a lot of theories about this topic.

As math is just an auxiliary science for physics, you can look at it from the astrophysicians point of view:

What if 0 ^ 0 was just the moment of the Big Bang where 1=0 ????

A mini-minimum later everything is fine and solvable:

(1^-100 ) ^ (1^-100) has not that paradox problem anymore.

You can compute it. Not on a PC Proessor - but you can,

Winni

PS.: Nice song for this topic: "If 6 was 9", Jimi Hendrix

Maybe at that point of big-bang all the matter was sucked in and magnetic field was at max. Later at mini-minimum point you defined the collapsing of it was started and movement of matter had started as expansion.

"As math is just an auxiliary science for physics" I have heard it this one or two times, in my life. Wasn't it continuing something like: ...but then soon after you need to go to ask: "dear mathematician could you explain this thing to me." one rather unknown quantum-physicist, if I'm not terribly mistaken.

The inverse primes (form 1/x , can't get right term to my head atm.) are also fascinating subject, I think I have read that there is now computational proof that they are solid. Not the series which is proven like Euler.

Back to reality. If calculating something with floats at least the implementation should be such that the erroneous answer is given by same actions in all platforms that follows floating point standard. For me and other who belongs to that 95% who have no idea (as Dr.Kahan painted it), it is important. If there is widely accepted and well defined standard should it be implemented (I'm pretty sure that most of it is in the FPC as there is some high-rank academic backing among the compiler developers).