On Saturday, November 2, 2013 12:57:52 PM UTC, Bart Goddard wrote: > Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in > > news:email@example.com: > > > > >> The point, as I've said repeatedly, is that your > > >> "theorem" assumes that it has a value. If it's not > > >> defined, then it has no value (or meaning.) > > > > > > > > > 0^0 is undefined in the same sense that the number x is undefined in > > > 0*x = 0. Any value works in both cases. > > > > That's hardly "undefined." Maybe "indeterminate" is what > > you're looking for. In which case, all this "theorem > > and proof and rigor" of yours is vacuous. We've known > > how to deal rigorously with indeterminates for centuries. > > > > As I said from the start: Not new, not correct.
As a professional mathematician, hopefully you'll find my question on Rado's paper more interesting than this thread, because it's far closer to what academic mathematicians generally talk about. I started that thread with a problem -- my inability to understand Rado's paper on Canonical Ramsey theory and my original question still stands. The thread is titled "Problem understanding Rado's proof of the Canonical Ramsey Theorem". Many thanks for any help you can give me.