Date: Oct 20, 2013 6:40 PM
Author: Bart Goddard
Subject: Re: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0

Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:4cf57eac-a9c8-457a-80f5-dbbb70ac9aa8@googlegroups.com:

> Perhaps you can give us your own formal definition of exponentiation
> on N, Bart?


Yes, I could. But then I would be playing into your distraction.
The rubber hits the road at 3 = 9, and you simply
delete this question from all posts and respond with
distractions. (That's how we know you're a crackpot.
That's what crackpots _do_; they ignore facts and
continue spewing word salad.)

If we choose 0^0 = 1 or 0, we do not get 3 = 9. If we
choose any of your infinity-minus-two other ways, we
get 3 = 9. And yet you insist that this is consistent.
That somehow, choosing 0^0 = 3 is just as consistent
as choosing 0^0 = 1, even though the former gives 3 = 9
while the latter does not. Biz-freakin'-zarre.