On Monday, October 21, 2013 6:37:58 AM UTC-4, 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. >
Far from being "indadequate," it formalizes and puts on a rigorous mathematical footing a practice that has been common for nearly two centuries -- to leave 0^0 undefined.