Date: Oct 30, 2013 2:34 PM
Author: JT
Subject: Re: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0

Den onsdagen den 30:e oktober 2013 kl. 19:32:22 UTC+1 skrev jonas.t...@gmail.com:
> Den onsdagen den 30:e oktober 2013 kl. 19:04:50 UTC+1 skrev Peter Percival:
>

> > jonas.thornvall@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > And again zero is not a number,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Why do you think that? 1/0 may be problematic, but none of 0/1, square
>
> >
>
> > 0, sqrt 0 are.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Well 0^2+tiger is certainly tiger.
>
> And 0 sqrt + tiger is certainly tiger.
>
> And 0/1 isn't an operation, so we have to add a tiger.
>
>
>
>
>

> >
>
> >
>
> > > and there certainly is no correct answer to question like 1/0, 0/1, square 0, sqrt 0. Because there is certainly no operation to perform no more than elephant squared + tiger.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> > What a piece of work is a man. How noble in reason, how infinite
>
> >
>
> > in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable,
>
> >
>
> > in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a God
>
> >
>
> > Shakespeare through the mouth of Hamlet

You do realise that 0/1 equals nada/1