Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Infinity (Score 1) 1067 1067

That context does not exist in the expression "0*log0". You invent it. Can you tell me what it is inherently about 0*log0 that tells you it makes sense to imagine it as the limit of x*log(x), instead of, for example, as the limit of 0*sum_{n=1}^N (-1^n)/n? Setting aside the fact that it happens to give the same answer, as that is immaterial.

Comment: Re:Infinity (Score 0) 1067 1067

L'Hopital's rule allows one to evaluate x*log(x) as real x approaches zero from the positive side. The limit turns out to be zero even with slight modification of each term, (eg, replacing the product with (ax)*log(bx) still leaves the limit as zero).

Without context, that's an arbitrary choice of a limit, albeit an aesthetically pleasing one. Generally speaking there is no reason why 0log0=0 makes any more sense than 0/0=0. Either might make sense to use as convention for a specific problem, which again is a temporary local modification to notation.

Comment: Re:Sounds like a plan! (Score 1) 1067 1067

well yeah, of course you could work around it if your system always defined x/0=0. in fact, if all your code is written correctly, and checks for division by zero before it ever happens instead of using built-in exception handling, then you shouldn't even notice how your system handles x/0. but the point is if you fuck it up, you at least want to know you fucked it up.

Comment: Re:Infinity (Score 1) 1067 1067

There is an identity rule for division: anything divided by one is itself (x/1 = x) but there is no rule that says x/x = 1 You can derive "rule two" from the identity rule for multiplication x*1 = x --> x/x = 1

Uh, that's not true. You can't derive existence of multiplicative inverse from existence of multiplicative unity, you have to assume existence of multiplicative inverse. For example, the ring of integers contains multiplicative unity, but does not contain multiplicative inverse. And there is no identity rule for division, there is just an identity rule for multiplication -- i.e., 1 is defined as the element that has x*1=x for all x.

Comment: Re:Infinity (Score 0) 1067 1067

Well, yes and no. It is often convenient to use the convention that 0/0=0, e.g., when computing local averages one does not have to go to the trouble to specify "if there are no points in the neighborhood, define the average as zero", so one uses this shorthand. Same goes for things like 0*log(0). But this is nothing more than a temporary local modification to notation.

Comment: Re:...meth (Score 1) 168 168

I don't see where it says anything about the family being awarded a settlement. It does say the city is considering negligent homicide charges, specifically because the property is in disrepair and a nuisance, and I suppose if they did charge the owners and if they were convicted that would help the family win a civil suit, but anyway that has relatively little to do with copper theft, it's more more about the risk of owning a property that is in a dangerous state of disrepair.

Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. -- Ambrose Bierce