|
|
Re: 0^0=1
Posted:
May 2, 2012 3:48 PM
|
|
On May 2, 2:54 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> > [...] But why should it
> > be a nice little recursive definition?
>
> Why indeed? Why not have a definition by cases with part recursive,
> part arbitrary and part deemed undefined? Why settle for "nice little"
> when you can have ugly and bloated?
>
When the only tool you have is a hammer, I guess every problem looks
like nail, eh, Fred?
Not every function can or should be defined recursively. The product
of a list of numbers is probably one of those. While you can easily
define it recursively for lists of 2 or more numbers, for lists of 0
or 1 numbers, you have to make a decision as to what makes sense for
your application. And I can't see any value being attached to an empty
list making any sense in this context.
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
Also see video demo
|
|
