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?