Date: Nov 1, 2013 5:31 PM
Author: Bart Goddard
Subject: Re: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0

Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in
news:84e44484-0d38-423b-9687-21e2f0a3477c@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, November 1, 2013 4:14:52 PM UTC-4, Bart Goddard wrote:
>

>> Your version of "thinking" results in
>>
>> contradictions.

>
> No contradictions here.


Is 0^0 defined in your system or not? You
claim your system is a basis for leaving 0^0
undefined. But the first thing you do is
define it to be "an uspecified integer."
And further, your calculations depend upon
it being defined.

It's a plain contradiction if something is
both defined and not defined.

>> why bother formalizing it now?
>>

>
> To understand exactly why 0^0 should be left undefined and how to work
> with this notion in practice.


But we already knew that, and we knew it better than
you ever will, and we know it with clear-headed
thinking, not self-contradictory nonsense.


>> At no point did I suggest using combinatorics to construct
>> anything.

>
> Apparently you don't understand how functions are formally
> constructed.


Apparently, you still can't read. You accused me of
something which I did not do. You continue your
accusation. I'm not surprised; contradictions form
a dense set of positive measure in your head.

Just try to answer the first question. Is 0^0
defined in your system?