Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: 0^0=1
Replies: 145   Last Post: Jun 5, 2012 1:10 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Dan Christensen

Posts: 1,696
Registered: 7/9/08
Re: 0^0=1
Posted: Apr 26, 2012 12:48 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Apr 25, 12:45 pm, Rotwang <sg...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 25/04/2012 15:52, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Apr 25, 2:22 am, Jussi Piitulainen<jpiit...@ling.helsinki.fi>
> > wrote:

> >> Dan Christensen writes:
> >>> Because it is unnecessary to assume 0^0 = 1.
>
> >> You are of course free to work in a restricted system where you leave
> >> it out. Other people need it defined. I think my main theme below is
> >> that 0^0 is _naturally_ 1, and it is artificial to exclude it. So: we
> >> disagree.

>
> >> 0^0 is the number of functions from the empty set to the empty set. In
> >> general, m^n is the number of functions from an n-element set to an
> >> m-element set. The number of ways to distribute n marbles in m boxes.

>
> >> 0^0 is the empty product. In general, x^n is the product of n x's, and
> >> then x^0 is the empty product.

>
> > Seems like a lot of hand waving to me. I have always seen
> > exponentiation defined recursively for integer or natural number
> > exponents n as:

>
> > x^1 = x
> > x^(n+1)= x^n * x.

>
> The first book I checked, namely Goldrei's /Classic Set Theory/, defines
> natural number exponentiation by the following recursion:
>
> x^0 = 1
> x^{n + 1} = x^n*x
>


This definition cannot be extended to exponentiation on the integers.
We could not have, for example, x = 0 and n = -1. Otherwise, 0^0 =
0^(-1) * 0. How then does this author extend exponentiation to the
integers?

As I have shown here, the usual recursive definition of exponentiation
on the natural numbers can easily be extended to the integers. The
only restriction is that for an exponent less than 1, the base cannot
be 0.

Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
Also see video demo





Date Subject Author
4/20/12
Read 0^0=1
Don H
4/20/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Virgil
4/20/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Pubkeybreaker
4/20/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
J. Antonio Perez M.
4/20/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Richard Tobin
4/20/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Don H
4/21/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
4/21/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Peter Webb
4/21/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dave Dodson
4/21/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Peter Webb
4/21/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Don H
4/21/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/21/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Don H
4/21/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/21/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Bart Goddard
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Don H
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
J. Antonio Perez M.
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Bart Goddard
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Virgil
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Pubkeybreaker
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dave Dodson
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Pubkeybreaker
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Pubkeybreaker
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
J. Antonio Perez M.
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Peter Webb
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
J. Antonio Perez M.
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Pubkeybreaker
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/7/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Ross Clement
5/7/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/7/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
exmathematician
5/7/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Ki Song
5/7/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/7/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Ki Song
5/7/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/7/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Ki Song
5/10/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Michael Stemper
5/7/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/7/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/8/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Butch Malahide
5/8/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/8/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Ross Clement
5/8/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
5/7/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Ross Clement
5/8/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/8/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Ki Song
5/8/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
David W. Cantrell
5/8/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/8/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/8/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/8/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
William Hale
5/8/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/9/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/10/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Michael Stemper
5/10/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/9/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/9/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/9/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/10/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Michael Stemper
5/8/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/8/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Michael Press
5/28/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
address_is@invalid.invalid
5/28/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
address_is@invalid.invalid
6/5/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Michael Press
4/21/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
David C. Ullrich
4/21/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
G. A. Edgar
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
David C. Ullrich
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
4/26/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Helmut Richter
4/21/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
4/21/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Richard Tobin
4/21/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Efftard K. Donglemeier
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Don H
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Bart Goddard
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
harold james
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Don H
4/24/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Bart Goddard
4/24/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/24/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Pubkeybreaker
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Pfsszxt@aol.com
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Wally W.
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
J. Antonio Perez M.
4/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/24/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Rotwang
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
David W. Cantrell
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/26/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
4/26/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/26/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Rotwang
4/26/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/26/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
4/25/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/26/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
4/26/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/26/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
4/26/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/27/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
5/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Michael Press
5/22/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Kaba
5/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Michael Press
4/23/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/27/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/26/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/26/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/27/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/27/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/27/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Repeating Rifle
4/27/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
jbriggs444@gmail.com
4/28/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Repeating Rifle
4/28/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
4/28/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
4/28/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Tim Little
4/27/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
4/29/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dr J R Stockton
4/29/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
David W. Cantrell

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.