On Saturday, November 2, 2013 10:34:54 AM UTC-4, Dan Christensen wrote: > On Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:57:52 AM UTC-4, Bart Goddard wrote: > > > Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in > > > > > > news:8b7f1b1d-ff1b-45be-8083-e0eebeb50194@googlegroups.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 practice, it amounts to the same thing: You can't assume that 0^0 has any particular value -- not 1 or 0 or any other number. Deal with it, Barty. >
In practice, 0^0 = 1 works just fine. Deal with it Danny.
