|
|
Re: 0^0=1
Posted:
Apr 28, 2012 12:22 AM
|
|
In article
<32c1f79d-047d-44ff-9926-fcf0e8a5d55e@v2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
jbriggs444 <jbriggs444@gmail.com> wrote:
> Irrelevant.
>
> If one were trying to define 0^0 as the limit of x^y as x and y
> jointly
> approach zero then one might be justified in invoking L'Hopital to
> help
> in evaluating the limit.
Point well taken but... The subject of essential singularities rather
than indeterminate forms should be the subject.
Being more of a physicist or engineer, I look for answers to problems
rather than rigor. Look at the ridicule Heaviside got from
mathematicians for his operational calculus used to solve real problems
just because he was not rigorous,
Most mathematicians no longer complain about operational calculus
because Laplace transforms and other approaches have provided the
justification for Heaviside methods.
--
Sam
Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.
|
|
