To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.funOpen lugnet.off-topic.fun in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Fun / 9077
9076  |  9078
Subject: 
Re: nits! (that is, Nits factorial) (was re contacting Lego Australia)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.fun
Date: 
Mon, 11 Mar 2002 10:33:16 GMT
Viewed: 
638 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Ross Crawford writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Larry Pieniazek writes:

Sorry, no. The two articles you cite clearly show that the Gamma function is
an EXTENSION of factorial to reals and complex numbers... NOT that factorial
itself works with reals.

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 extensions *use* the gamma funtion, but *are*
valid extensions. YMMV.

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.

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
equation, and z on the left. I've already notified Eric about the error 8?)



Message is in Reply To:
  nits! (that is, Nits factorial) (was re contacting Lego Australia)
 
(...) 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)

21 Messages in This Thread:





Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR