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

Den lördagen 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.com


Dan are you by any chance related to Ward Christensen founder of CBBS?