Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in news:email@example.com:
> Only to slaves of convention.
What you call "convention", the rest of us call "thinking." Your version of "thinking" results in contradictions. Maybe you think contradictions are the wave of the future and thinking outside the box in mathematics. But everyone else knows that it's just an LSD inspired delusion.
>> It has no more >> >> meaning than "skyblue pink". Second, before one >> >> formalizes anything, one ought to have an argument about >> >> why it should be formalized at all. >> > > That's absurd!
Not hardly. You seem to think that we've been plodding along all these centuries without a formal notion of something. (Assuming this were true, (it's certainly not)) why bother formalizing it now?
>> In the context of combinatorics, it's completely logical >> >> and completely formal to define 0^0 = 1. And you don't >> >> get it. > > > First of all, you don't need combinatorics (or cardinality) to > construct an exponent-like function ^ on N such that 0^0=1.
At no point did I suggest using combinatorics to construct anything. Not only can you not think, you can't read with comprehension. We may have reached the core of your educational difficulty.