 | | Re: Contacting LEGO Australia —Ross Crawford
| | | | (...) 54... (...) Double factorial equation (8) clearly states "Similarly, the double factorial can be extended to complex arguments as: [eqn image that I can't be bothered linking to]", similarly Factorial eqn (7). Which by my book means these (...) (22 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | | | | | | nits! (that is, Nits factorial) (was re contacting Lego Australia) —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | (...) It does indeed vary. By my book it's clear as day that an extension of something means the original something *doesn't* apply in the extended area. (22 years ago, 8-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: nits! (that is, Nits factorial) (was re contacting Lego Australia) —Ross Crawford
| | | | | (...) Fine, Lar, but the eqn I cited defines z!! for all complex z[1], so 3.141592654!! *is* a valid expression, whether you wanna call it double factorial or not. ROSCO [1] In fact, it doesn't - it erroneously uses x on the right side of the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | | |
