On Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:17:38 AM UTC-4, Bart Goddard wrote: > Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in > > news:firstname.lastname@example.org: > > > > > On Thursday, October 31, 2013 1:01:05 AM UTC-4, Bart Goddard wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> mathematician knows exactly how to deal with 0^0. > > > > > > > > > There does not appear to be any consensus, however. You, yourself have > > > admitted finding 0^0 to be ambiguous -- either 0 or 1 -- but, so far, > > > all we have from you is a bit of hand-waving. > > > > This is what you don't get, and you refuse to be taught: > > There IS consensus: We all know that in different > > situations, one handles 0^0 differently.
That is simply agreeing to disagree. It is not a consensus; it is a cop out.
> You're "solution" > > is to do nothing. >
Again, I have provided, perhaps for the first time (not sure), a formal rationale for the longstanding practice of leaving 0^0 undefined using only the rules and axioms of basic arithmetic on N.
> >> You've done nothing. > > > > > > On the contrary, I have presented a rigorous, mathematical basis, > > > complete with formal proofs, for dealing with the ambiguity of 0^0 > > > > No, you've presented nothing that deals with 0^0.
You are willfully blind. Your silly little game of gotcha has blown up in your face, Barty. Deal with it.