Date: Oct 30, 2013 4:42 PM
Author: Bart Goddard
Subject: Re: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0

Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:b18947f2-b275-4a83-a95c-483eccd2dc7b@googlegroups.com:


> If, for some reason, you don't want to call it a definition, call it a
> theorem.


No. It is neither. It's a bit of empty stupidity.
You're claiming to extend exponentiation to N_0, but
all of your rules say "nonzero base." It's a monument
of idiocy, the likes of which mankind has never before
seen. If you keep saying "nonzero base", then you
haven't done anything about 0, so there is no extention.

>In practice, it makes no difference.

Of course it makes a difference. If you extend
exponentiation to N_0, then 0^0 has to mean something,
if you make it mean anything but 0 or 1, then you
get contradiction. Of 0^0 doesn't mean anything,
then you haven't done any extending.