In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Michael F. Stemper" <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 11/02/2013 04:38 PM, Virgil wrote: > > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > > PotatoSauce <email@example.com> wrote: > > > >> In practice, 0^0 = 1 works just fine. > > > > Unless one wants 0^X to be continuous at X = 0. > > Which is normally not a requirement when working in the > naturals -- the context of this discussion. I don't think > that anybody's said that 0^0 can or should be defined for > the reals.
But why should one have to have different definitions for integers and reals? --