On Friday, October 25, 2013 5:26:32 PM UTC-4, Bart Goddard wrote: > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in > > news:email@example.com: > > > > > In <XnsA25C9BC2F6C67goddardbenetscapenet@184.108.40.206>, on 10/17/2013 > > > at 08:18 PM, Bart Goddard <firstname.lastname@example.org> said: > > > > > >>Some people are not compelled by logic. But mathematicians are. > > >>Defining 0^0=1 preserves the exponent rules. > > > > > > It preserves one and destroys another. As long as an author defines > > > his nomenclature, it doesn't matter which way he goes, although one > > > choice may be more convenient in any given case. > > > > > > > It matters if the "way he goes" is 0^0 = 3.
You misunderstand. I formally proved that there are infinitely many exponent-like functions, and that they are all identical except for the value assigned to (0,0). I also proved that, for non-zero bases, the usual Laws of Exponents hold for each one of them.