Date: Nov 2, 2013 4:19 PM
Author: Ki Song
Subject: Re: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0

On Saturday, November 2, 2013 10:34:54 AM UTC-4, Dan Christensen wrote:
> On Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:57:52 AM UTC-4, Bart Goddard wrote:
>

> > Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in
>
> >
>
> > news:8b7f1b1d-ff1b-45be-8083-e0eebeb50194@googlegroups.com:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >> The point, as I've said repeatedly, is that your
>
> >
>
> > >> "theorem" assumes that it has a value. If it's not
>
> >
>
> > >> defined, then it has no value (or meaning.)
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 0^0 is undefined in the same sense that the number x is undefined in
>
> >
>
> > > 0*x = 0. Any value works in both cases.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > That's hardly "undefined." Maybe "indeterminate" is what
>
> >
>
> > you're looking for.
>
>
>
> In practice, it amounts to the same thing: You can't assume that 0^0 has any particular value -- not 1 or 0 or any other number. Deal with it, Barty.
>


In practice, 0^0 = 1 works just fine. Deal with it Danny.

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