Re: factorial doc bug? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: factorial doc bug?
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.30.0109121426240.694-100000@peter.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: factorial doc bug?  (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>)
Responses Re: factorial doc bug?
List 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@gmx.net   http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Patrick Welche
Date:
Subject: Re: backend hba.c prob
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: syslog by default?