From: SourceForge.net <noreply@so...>  20031027 21:46:45

Bugs item #831354, was opened at 20031027 16:45 Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=831354&group_id=4933 Category: None Group: None Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 5 Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: beta(2,1) inconsistent Initial Comment: beta(2, 1) => 1/2 beta(2.0, 1) => 0.5 BUT beta(2.0, 1.0) => 0.25 The fundamental problem is that beta(x,y) is undefined as a continuous real function of both x and y at (2,1), but that beta(x,1) can be extended to be a well behaved continuous function of x, namely 1/x. This is essentially the same case as x^y at (0,0). Right now, Maxima simplifies x^0=>1 and 0^x=>0 (just like beta(x,1)). The difference is that Maxima gives an error for 0^0, 0.0^0, etc. Longerterm, it would be nice if 0^x kept as a side condition (x # 0) of the simplification, but for now....  You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=831354&group_id=4933 