Date: Oct 20, 2013 3:03 PM
Author: Peter Percival
Subject: Re: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0
Dan Christensen wrote:

> Clearly, it bothers some readers here that there is not just one, but

> infinitely many functions on N that fit all our requirements for

For 'all our' read 'all Dan's'.

> exponentiation (i.e. for repeated multiplication). As I have shown

> here, however, this notion can be put on a rigorously sound

> mathematical footing using only the axioms and rules of ordinary

> logic and set theory. I, therefore, feel justified in defining

> exponentiation on N as a binary function ^ such that

--

The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here

Lincoln at Gettysburg