Date: Oct 20, 2013 4:03 PM
Author: Dan Christensen
Subject: Re: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0
On Sunday, October 20, 2013 2:59:31 PM UTC-4, Bart Goddard wrote:

> Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in

>

> news:f1e0d268-a374-47d2-a29d-75bc35c16a31@googlegroups.com:

>

>

>

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

>

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

>

> > exponentiation

>

>

>

> No, what bothers us is that you _say_ this, when we

>

> know for a fact that there are only two ways, not

>

> infinitely many.

Well, at least you now seem to have come around to the fact that 0^0 is ambiguous with two, if not infinitely many possibilities (which there are). But even with only two possibilities, you would still have to stipulate limits on the definition of 0 exponents. In a proof, you still wouldn't be able to refer to the value 0^0 because it isn't specified in the definition and it doesn't seem you can infer it.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com

Visit my new math blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com