Date: Nov 1, 2013 7:04 PM
Author: Dan Christensen
Subject: Re: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0

On Friday, November 1, 2013 5:31:05 PM UTC-4, Bart Goddard wrote:
> 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.
>


You are grasping at straws, Barty. Again, I have 0^0 being a natural number, nothing else -- not a specific value since there are infinitely many unique, exponent-like functions on N, each with a different value for 0^0, but identical otherwise.

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


No contradiction whatsoever. Just you desperately grasping at straws, Barty. Get over it.

Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my new math blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com