Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in news:email@example.com:
> On Friday, November 1, 2013 4:14:52 PM UTC-4, Bart Goddard wrote: > >> Your version of "thinking" results in >> >> contradictions. > > No contradictions here.
Is 0^0 defined in your system or not? You claim your system is a basis for leaving 0^0 undefined. But the first thing you do is define it to be "an uspecified integer." And further, your calculations depend upon it being defined.
It's a plain contradiction if something is both defined and not defined.
>> why bother formalizing it now? >> > > To understand exactly why 0^0 should be left undefined and how to work > with this notion in practice.
But we already knew that, and we knew it better than you ever will, and we know it with clear-headed thinking, not self-contradictory nonsense.
>> At no point did I suggest using combinatorics to construct >> anything. > > Apparently you don't understand how functions are formally > constructed.
Apparently, you still can't read. You accused me of something which I did not do. You continue your accusation. I'm not surprised; contradictions form a dense set of positive measure in your head.
Just try to answer the first question. Is 0^0 defined in your system?