Anonymous user
Talk:Exponentiation operator: Difference between revisions
→0**0: added a comment about 0**0.
(→AWK: 1985 to 1988?) |
(→0**0: added a comment about 0**0.) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 27:
::The exponent operator is causing confusion. I am under the impression that some versions of awk do not have this. Looking at various documentation on the internet, the caret operator is not on the list of operators. However, some documents state that POSIX lists the caret, but that doesn't mean anything because that could be a retrofit. Did System 5 awk supported the caret as an exponent operator? I only have it listed as a regular expression anchor. I was hoping to come up with a formula that does not use the exponent operator altogether. [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 22:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
:::[http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/man/oawk.1.html oawk] is missing the ^ operator. I believe that the ^ operator and the function keyword appeared in [[nawk]] around 1985 to 1988, but I am not sure. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 23:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
==diatomic operator==
The REXX language allows the exponential operator to be specified as
* **
* * *
(that is, with an optional whitespace between the two asterisks.
I once read that one of these was diatomic, but I can't find a
reference anymore, and I know not of which is which.
<br>Of course, it's possible that both are diatomic.
Also, REXX allows such (multiple) statements as (but not recommended, of course):
<lang rexx>
tot = x *, /*raise X to the ... */
* 10 /* ... tenth power. */
</lang>
-- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
== 0**0 ==
Rexx 0**0 gives 1, so does ipow (the internal routine)<br>
And so does NetRexx.<br>
But should it not raise error as PL/I does?--[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 09:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
:It depends upon that which you are doing with it:
::a**b=c is the inverse function of log(c base b) = a - there is no such thing as log base 0 and no number has a log of zero in any base.
::Number Theory dealing with polynomials (which are themselves numbers) any number ** 0 is 1 by definition.
::Calculus treats it as undefined.
--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 13:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
::: Not all REXXes compute '''0**0''' equally, at least one REXX treats it as a syntax error. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 00:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
| |||