Re: factorial doc bug?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: factorial doc bug?
Date: 2001-09-12 12:45:10
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0109121426240.694-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Lockhart writes:

> Keep in mind that he is a mathematician, and I'll guess that he won't
> have much patience with folks who expect a result for a factorial of a
> fractional number ;)

Real mathematicians will be perfectly happy with a factorial for a
fractional number, as long as it's properly and consistently defined. ;-)

Seriously, there is a well-established definition of factorials of
non-integral real numbers, but the current behaviour is probably the most
intuitive for the vast majority of users.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-09-12 14:20:38 Re: syslog by default?
Previous Message Patrick Welche 2001-09-12 12:29:27 Re: backend hba.c prob