Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in news:firstname.lastname@example.org:
>> 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.
No one disagrees. We all agree that in Calculus, 0^0 is indeterminate and in combinatorics it's nice to have empty products (like 0^0) equal to one. It's all completely rigorous. You, on the other hand, do nothing but confuse yourself.
And how hilarious is it that the guy who won't define 0^0, while declaring that he's taken care of the non-existant problem, say "cop out."
> 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.
No, you haven't. You've produced pages of meaningless drivel that accomplishes exactly nothing.
> You are willfully blind. Your silly little game of gotcha has blown up > in your face, Barty. Deal with it.
So it really has no impact on you that every single mathematician in the world thinks that this opus of yours is pure crap? It doesn't even give you a second's pause to do some self-examination?