On Monday, October 21, 2013 8:46:34 AM UTC-4, Bart Goddard wrote: > 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.
I do not exclude 0 from consideration. The only thing that is excluded is the assigning of any value to 0^0, thus formalizing a practice that has been common for nearly 2 centuries.
My definition again (suitable quantifiers assumed):
1. ^ : NxN --> N 2. x^0 = 1 for x=/=0 3. x^(y+1) = x^y * x
It seems you can come up with no other formal definition that deals with what even you have conceded is the ambiguity of 0^0.
You childish tactic of dredging up an old argument, which you lost here, as some kind a diversion has failed you yet again, Barty.