```Date: Nov 3, 2013 6:19 AM
Author: JT
Subject: Re: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0

Den lĂ¶rdagen den 2:e november 2013 kl. 15:34:54 UTC+1 skrev Dan Christensen:> 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.> > > > Dan> > Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com> > Visit my new math blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.comDan are you by any chance related to Ward Christensen founder of CBBS?
```