```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 HamletYou do realise that 0/1 equals nada/1
```