# Revision history [back]

### More problems with general power of a matrix

Even though in version 8.2 the code for the general power of a matrix has been improved (c.f. question 41622), it still doesn't work in some cases, as this singular, diagonalizable matrix

A=matrix(QQbar,3,3,[[-2,-8,-12],[1,4,4],[0,0,1]])

k=var('k')

A**k

shows.

### More problems with general power of a matrix

Even though in version 8.2 the code for the general power of a matrix has been improved (c.f. question 41622), it still doesn't work in some cases, as this singular, diagonalizable matrix matrix

A=matrix(QQbar,3,3,[[-2,-8,-12],[1,4,4],[0,0,1]])

k=var('k')

A**k

A=matrix(QQbar,3,3,[[-2,-8,-12],[1,4,4],[0,0,1]])
k=var('k')
A**k


shows.

### More problems with general power of a matrix

Even though in version 8.2 the code for the general power of a matrix has been improved (c.f. question 41622), it still doesn't work in some cases, as i.e. this singular, diagonalizable matrix

A=matrix(QQbar,3,3,[[-2,-8,-12],[1,4,4],[0,0,1]])
k=var('k')
A**k


shows.

### More problems with general power of a matrix

Even though in version 8.2 the code for the general power of a matrix has been improved (c.f. question 41622), it still doesn't work in some cases, as i.e. this singular, diagonalizable matrix

A=matrix(QQbar,3,3,[[-2,-8,-12],[1,4,4],[0,0,1]])
k=var('k')
A**k


shows.

Concerning the remark in trac ticket 25520: Why not defining $0^x=1$ for $x\in {\bf N}$, which seems reasonable, since the number of functions $\emptyset \to \emptyset$ is 1?