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