On 10/21/2013 5:37 AM, Peter Percival wrote: > Dan Christensen wrote: > >> Well, at least you now seem to have come around to the fact that 0^0 >> is ambiguous with two, if not infinitely many possibilities (which >> there are). But even with only two possibilities, you would still >> have to stipulate limits on the definition of 0 exponents. In a >> proof, you still wouldn't be able to refer to the value 0^0 because >> it isn't specified in the definition and it doesn't seem you can >> infer it. > > Dan's definition of ^ doesn't allow the value of 0^0 to be inferred. > That is a big hint that the definition is inadequate. >
Adequacy is probably the correct notion of what is wrong here.