On Tue, 13 Sept 2022, 17:00 David Joyner, <wdjoy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's play nice here, okay? Let me explain what I mean in a nicer way. Not defining B_1 looks good on the surface given the current discussion, but is really a strictly worse option than defining B_1 = +½ or -½ because then the n = 1 case has to be special-cased out of formulae where B_1 is normally used. That B_n for odd n at least 3 is zero may provide computational advantages, but is a non-trivial fact. It is more parsimonious to put the even, one and greater-odd instances of the Bernoulli numbers into one bag. Jeremy Tan / Parcly Taxel -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAGYgO94ZEW6gpF-mzeqWbyoP%2BTaKG%3D9gXkVJxPHsJ8_ha_JKjw%40mail.gmail.com.
