Date: Nov 1, 2013 4:14 PM
Author: Bart Goddard
Subject: Re: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0

Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:3d6f459e-9db5-4c39-89f1-08bba66f0e8f@googlegroups.com:

> Only to slaves of convention.

What you call "convention", the rest of us call
"thinking." Your version of "thinking" results in
contradictions. Maybe you think contradictions are
the wave of the future and thinking outside the
box in mathematics. But everyone else knows that
it's just an LSD inspired delusion.




>> It has no more
>>
>> meaning than "skyblue pink". Second, before one
>>
>> formalizes anything, one ought to have an argument about
>>
>> why it should be formalized at all.
>>

>
> That's absurd!


Not hardly. You seem to think that we've been plodding
along all these centuries without a formal notion of
something. (Assuming this were true, (it's certainly not))
why bother formalizing it now?




>> In the context of combinatorics, it's completely logical
>>
>> and completely formal to define 0^0 = 1. And you don't
>>
>> get it.

>
>
> First of all, you don't need combinatorics (or cardinality) to
> construct an exponent-like function ^ on N such that 0^0=1.


At no point did I suggest using combinatorics to construct
anything. Not only can you not think, you can't read with
comprehension. We may have reached the core of your
educational difficulty.