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