View Single Post
Oct18-09, 09:48 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 39,691
Quote Quote by lurflurf View Post
Why is it lazy, it is a perfectly reasonable definition. I think we should only define sin(x) when x/pi is rational and then we can have a new funtion pik'jhkrdwgfjh;swakjlh(x) that is equal to sin(x) when x/pi is rational. That way if some one says "What is sin(1)" we can say "sin(1) is not defined but pik'jhkrdwgfjh;swakjlh(1)~0.8414709848078965066525023216303". Many textbooks and refrences simply state x!:=gamm(x+1). It seems some newer books I have not seen have this ".5! is not defined" stuff, but I don't see the point.
You certainly can do that but I don't believe it is (yet) standard practice. But maybe I am just showing my age!

(I wasn't the one who called it "lazy"!)