|
|
Re: 0^0=1
Posted:
May 8, 2012 11:54 PM
|
|
On May 8, 6:14 pm, William Hale <bill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <aa8c75f4-9669-4432-a3bf-2acefe813...@h10g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
> Dan Christensen <Dan_Christen...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > On May 8, 2:36 pm, Frederick Williams <freddywilli...@btinternet.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> > > > 0^3 = 1*0*0*0 = 0
> > > > 0^2 = 1*0*0 = 0
> > > > 0^1 = 1*0 = 0
> > > > 0^0 = 1
>
> > > > Can we formalize this argument? How do you go from 0^1 = 0 (a direct
> > > > consequence of the usual definition of ^ on N) to 0^0 = 1?
>
> > > The usual definition is
>
> > > x^0 = 1, x^{n+1} = x * x^n.
>
> > So, by definition, 0^0 would be 1.
>
> Yes. Is there something wrong with that?
>
I supposed there is nothing inherently wrong with defining your way
out of a controversy. It's just not very intuitively satisfying that
the only apparent motive is convenience. And that it probably isn't
even necessary to define a value for 0^0.
>
>
> > > If, rather, you mean
>
> > > x^1 = x, x^{n+1} = x * x^n
>
> So, by definition, 1^1 would be 1.
True.
> Why don't you think there's something
> wrong with this?
To my knowledge, there is nothing very controversial 1^1 = 1. Correct
me if I am wrong, but I don't think there is any weird behaviour of
f(x,y)=x^y around (1,1) in the reals -- no path-dependent limits, etc.
> > Yes. Here is my understanding: This is the form you must use for N not
> > including zero. The definition can be easily extended to N including
> > zero, however.
>
> > If you want the usual rules of exponents to apply, 0^0 could be either
> > left undefined, or defined to be 1 (as above) or 0. Neither
> > alternative should lead to inconsistencies.
>
> > For no other reason than it can be used to produce the required
> > results in some cases, if a value is chosen, it is usually (always?)
> > 1. Is that a good enough reason to choose 0^0 = 1? Many specialists
> > seem to think so -- this, despite path-dependent limits of f(x,y) =
> > x^y toward (0,0) when the definition of ^ is extended to the reals,
> > e.g lim(x->0): x^0 = 1 and lim (y->0): 0^y = 0.
>
> > Perhaps because of these path-dependent limits in the reals, many
> > authors remain unconvinced, and leave 0^0 undefined. In some (all?)
> > cases, results equivalent to those obtained with 0^0=1 can be obtained
> > by considering additional zero-cases with 0^0 being left undefined.
>
> > FWIW, my personal preference would be to leave 0^0 undefined when
> > writing formal proofs.
>
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 software athttp://www.dcproof.com
Also see video demo
|
|
