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