Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in news:firstname.lastname@example.org:
>> >> Nope. I asked you to choose between whether 0^0 >> >> is defined in your system or not. >> >> > You want to change your story now? (Used to be 0^0= 0 or 1.) >> >> Your memory (like the rest of your mind) is defective. > > A wise man once said, honesty means never having to remember what you > said. You, on the other hand, Barty, had better ALWAYS remember > exactly what you said: > > "You're asserting that 0^0 can be defined to be anything, and the > exponent rules still work. They don't. However, if 0^0=0 or 0^0 =1, > they do... > > "We know for a fact that there are only two ways, not infinitely > many... > > "If you extend exponentiation to N_0, then 0^0 has to mean something, > if you make it mean anything but 0 or 1, then you get contradiction." > > You have been caught in yet ANOTHER lie. When will you learn, Barty?
Note that in none of these quotes have I asked you choose between 0^0=0 and 0^0=1. I have asked you multiple times to choose between whether 0^0 is defined in your system or not. That you ignore the question entirely is telling. Actually, it's more than telling. It's incontrovertable proof that you now know how wrong you are. An honest person would just admit it, instead of trying to hide behind thin bravado. You're not fooling anyone. Not a single person. Not even yourself anymore.