Date: Nov 2, 2013 10:03 AM
Author: Dan Christensen
Subject: Re: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0
On Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:55:15 AM UTC-4, Bart Goddard wrote:

> Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in

>

> news:41331a38-67d0-420e-a808-c818410c058f@googlegroups.com:

>

>

>

>

>

> >> The point, as I've said repeatedly, is that your

>

> >> "theorem" assumes that it has a value.

>

> >

>

> > No, 0^0 is assumed to be natural number of unspecified or unknown

>

> > value.

>

>

>

> Please make up your mind. I said "..it has a value" and you

>

> say "No." Then your very next words are that it

>

> has a value.

>

>

>

> You call this crap "rigor"?

>

>

>

>

>

> > Since 0^0 is a natural number, we have, 0^1 = 0^(0+1) = 0^0 * 0 = 0,

>

> > etc.

>

>

>

> So you're not leaving 0^0 undefined after all

Yes, I am. Get over it, Barty.

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com

Visit my new math blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com