Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in news:firstname.lastname@example.org:
> If you can't come up with a better formal definition of exponentiation > than I have, just say so. You are looking ridiculous with this 3=9 > shit. Time to put up or shut up, Barty!
So you think you're on the playground. Oh well. If I look ridiculous, it's only because some might wonder why I'm wasting my time with an obviously deranged crackpot.
The bottom line remains the bottom line: Your so-called "formal definition" which was supposed to be about 0^0, excludes 0 from consideration. You have 100's of lines of what you call "formal proof" of non-theorems which appear to be about every number EXCEPT zero.
No amount of junior high taunting changes the plain facts. Your "formal definition" is garbage. Your "theorems" are garbage. Your "proofs" are garbage.
On can logically infer, from your statements, that 3 = 9. You've failed to address this issue for days now, through multiple posts. Now you have the cheek to say "put up or shut up?"
Try to focus on this fact: No one reading this thread (if there is anyone) thinks you're right. Absolutely every single member of the audience sees through your crap.