On Friday, November 1, 2013 11:29:52 PM UTC-4, Bart Goddard wrote: > Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in > > news:email@example.com: > > > > > > > As I have said repeatedly, it is assumed to be a natural number, but > > > no specific value is assigned to it. So, yes, that makes it > > > "undefined." What is your point, Barty? > > > > The point, as I've said repeatedly, is that your > > "theorem" assumes that it has a value.
No, 0^0 is assumed to be natural number of unspecified or unknown value.
> If it's not > > defined, then it has no value (or meaning.) Contradiction. >
It has no specific value. No contradiction.
> 0^1 is defined in terms of 0^0. So now, 0^1 is > > undefined.
Since 0^0 is a natural number, we have, 0^1 = 0^(0+1) = 0^0 * 0 = 0, etc.
> 0^2 is defined in terms of 0^1, so > > 0^2 is now undefined. Etc. So, by induction, > > you haven't defined 0^(anything). We, in the business, > > call this "logic."
Actually, I think we call it "playing the silly bugger."