| 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
| 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 |