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: May 7, 2012 8:08 AM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 2,971
From: London
Registered: 2/8/08
Re: 0^0=1
Posted: May 6, 2012 1:05 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

"Jussi Piitulainen" <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:qotlil5w8tt.fsf@ruuvi.it.helsinki.fi...
> LudovicoVan writes:
>

>> AFAIK, from the basics of number theory, 0^0 is just like 0/0 and it
>> should be undefined (in standard, point-like arithmetic). Then,
>> sometimes for convenience of calculation, sometimes because it makes
>> sense re the specific mathematical object we are using, one can
>> decide to define 0^0 to have a specific value, which amounts to
>> redefining the power function with the addition of a special case.
>> The drawback with this approach is that the corresponding operations
>> lose some of their properties, like commutativity, or
>> "invertibility", etc. etc. -- that is, I cannot be more precise than
>> that, but sometimes one gets to prove 1=0 with these "extensions",
>> etc...

>
> Sheer FUD. There is no number-theoretic reason to leave 0^0 undefined,
> and there are good reasons to define it. It's not a special case. It's
> a special case when it is left undefined, which is usually done for no
> stated reason and sometimes for bogus reasons such as 0^1/0^1 being
> undefined, or 0^0 being indeterminate as a limiting form.
>
> By all means, present the reasoning. I've been watching this space
> since the times when the topic used to be raised every other week and
> seen only nervous cluelesness raised against the definition.


(I'll talk about 0/0 because 0^0 can be shown to be equivalent.)

On the contrary, there are all reasons: in the case 0/0, that is, by
definition of division, "the number which, when multiplied by 0, gives 0",
and you just do not have ground to chose a specific value among all the
possible values that would fit the bill. But the point is even more
technical than that, as you do get to (easily) prove that 1==0 if you adopt
any such definitions. This is how I would show it:

1
= 1 + 1 - 1
= 0/0 + 0/0 - 1
= (0+0)/(0*0) - 1 -- 0/0 is defined, isn't it?
= 0/0 - 1
= 1 - 1
= 0

Hence please re-read what I said, because one thing is to patch a function,
other thing is the properties of the corresponding operations and the
manipulations you are then entitled to perform. In particular, you are
surely entitled to take 0/0:=1 in order to attain this or that specific
computational goal, but you have to put careful and strict limits on where
that definition can be used, otherwise all you will get is an inconsistent
system. And these limits are what we usually denote as "exceptions", in the
broad sense.

-LV




Date Subject Author
5/1/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jesse F. Hughes
5/1/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
David W. Cantrell
5/1/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/1/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
David W. Cantrell
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Michael Stemper
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Rotwang
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
jbriggs444@gmail.com
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Horand.Gassmann@googlemail.com
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
William Hale
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
William Hale
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
William Hale
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
William Hale
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
mike3
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Horand.Gassmann@googlemail.com
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Horand.Gassmann@googlemail.com
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/4/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Horand.Gassmann@googlemail.com
5/4/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/4/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Marshall
5/4/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/5/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Marshall
5/5/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Marshall
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Marshall
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/4/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Marshall
5/4/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/5/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/5/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/5/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Marshall
5/5/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Marshall
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
William Hale
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/7/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
William Hale
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Marshall
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Marshall
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Butch Malahide
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
William Hale
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
William Hale
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
William Hale
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
billh04
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Horand.Gassmann@googlemail.com
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Ki Song
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Ki Song
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Ki Song
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Ki Song
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
William Hale
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
William Hale
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Ki Song
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
William Hale
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
LudovicoVan
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/6/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/4/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Ki Song
5/4/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Horand.Gassmann@googlemail.com
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Virgil
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Frederick Williams
5/3/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Dan Christensen
5/2/12
Read Re: 0^0=1
Jussi Piitulainen

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2013. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.