fom
Posts:
1,968
Registered:
12/4/12


Re: The ambiguity of 0^0 on N
Posted:
Sep 20, 2013 12:55 AM


On 9/19/2013 10:28 PM, Dan Christensen wrote: > On Thursday, September 19, 2013 11:24:08 PM UTC4, fom wrote: >> On 9/19/2013 10:10 PM, Dan Christensen wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, September 19, 2013 10:42:09 PM UTC4, fom wrote: >> >>>> On 9/19/2013 9:24 PM, Dan Christensen wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:36:57 PM UTC4, fom wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> Then it should be easy to prove 0^0=1 using only natural number arithmetic. How about it? >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> One can "prove" nothing to another >> >>>> >> >>>> when the latter refuses to provide >> >>>> >> >>>> the requested justifications upon >> >>>> >> >>>> which the claim of the latter is >> >>>> >> >>>> based. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Chicken scratch is not honest toil. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> The recursive definition of operations >> >>>> >> >>>> follows from Skolem's work. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> The classbased definition of 0 >> >>>> >> >>>> follows from Frege's work. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> You have no definitions. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> Choose any definitions or axioms you like. I'm not fussy. Just don't assume from the start that 0^0=1, e.g that x^0=1 for all natural numbers x. >> >>> >> >> >> >> Apparently you are "fussy". >> >> >> >> On your account, one must conclude that 0 is >> >> not a natural number. >> >> >> >> You have objected to that conclusion. > > This is getting creepy. >
You are posting crank nonsense which can only be made sensible by turning back the clock to where "first principles" really mattered.
Then, incapable of sustaining a discussion on such grounds, you cannot even make sense of your own illogic.
What would you expect to come from such a confused position?
Applause?

