On Friday, November 1, 2013 5:31:05 PM UTC-4, Bart Goddard wrote: > Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in > > news:firstname.lastname@example.org: > > > > > 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. >
You are grasping at straws, Barty. Again, I have 0^0 being a natural number, nothing else -- not a specific value since there are infinitely many unique, exponent-like functions on N, each with a different value for 0^0, but identical otherwise.
> > > It's a plain contradiction if something is > > both defined and not defined. >
No contradiction whatsoever. Just you desperately grasping at straws, Barty. Get over it.