Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in news:firstname.lastname@example.org:
> Perhaps you can give us your own formal definition of exponentiation > on N, Bart?
Yes, I could. But then I would be playing into your distraction. The rubber hits the road at 3 = 9, and you simply delete this question from all posts and respond with distractions. (That's how we know you're a crackpot. That's what crackpots _do_; they ignore facts and continue spewing word salad.)
If we choose 0^0 = 1 or 0, we do not get 3 = 9. If we choose any of your infinity-minus-two other ways, we get 3 = 9. And yet you insist that this is consistent. That somehow, choosing 0^0 = 3 is just as consistent as choosing 0^0 = 1, even though the former gives 3 = 9 while the latter does not. Biz-freakin'-zarre.