[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: 0^0 = ?
From: |
Mike Miller |
Subject: |
RE: 0^0 = ? |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:50:41 -0600 (CST) |
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Randy Gober wrote:
> Yes, but lim(x->0) log(x) does not exist, however The lim(x->0+)=-inf
and lim(x->0+) x*log(a_1*x) = 0, right?
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Miller [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:06 PM
> To: Randy Gober
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: RE: 0^0 = ?
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Randy Gober wrote:
>
> > Goldberg's proof is flawed. He writes that f(x)^g(x)=
> > e^[g(x)log{f(x)}], but
> > f(x) = 0, => log(f(x)) = -inf
> > So g(x)log(f(x)) is a 0*inf form, which itself is indeterment.
> >
> > (similar problem with the limit at the end: lim(x->0) x*log(a_1*x) )
-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.
Octave's home on the web: http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects: http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information: http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------
- 0^0 = ?, Cong, 2003/11/12
- RE: 0^0 = ?, Randy Gober, 2003/11/13
- RE: 0^0 = ?, Boud Roukema, 2003/11/14
- RE: 0^0 = ?, John W. Eaton, 2003/11/14
- Re: 0^0 = ?, Geraint Paul Bevan, 2003/11/14
- RE: 0^0 = ?, Ted Harding, 2003/11/14
- RE: 0^0 = ?, John W. Eaton, 2003/11/14
- RE: 0^0 = ?, Mike Miller, 2003/11/14