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.