Date: Oct 31, 2013 3:12 AM
Author: David Bernier
Subject: Re: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0

On 10/31/2013 02:48 AM, David Bernier wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 06:28 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <l4rrgu$joa$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Robin Chapman <R.J.Chapman@ex.ac.uk> wrote:
>>

>>> Come on, Bart, you've been around sci.math for a while;
>>> however egregiously daft Dan's ideas on exponentiation might
>>> be, they are nowhere near breaking any records for idiocy
>>> even just in sci.math.

>>
>> Very true. I propose that 0^0 be defined to be 0.999...9
>>
>> -- Richard
>>

>
> I've been critisized in the past for not giving a precise
> definition of infinity, and from what I remember,
> breaking records of inaptitude here in sci.math is
> not for the typical new-comer, in my opinion. :)


[...]

Vinoo Cameron and associates of "Inverse 19" are
ranked highly by me for exceptional obscurity.

As in the "paper":

Title:
"The disproof and fall of the Riemann?s hypothesis by quadratic base:
The correct variable distribution of prime numbers by the clear
mathematics of the half-line values (?Chan function?) of prime numbers".


Author: Vinoo Cameron MD.

Association: Hope research, Athens, Wisconsin, USA.

E-mail: Hope9900@frontier.com

---------------------------

dave

--
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/855/t8d9.png/