Ross writes: > On May 8, 9:58 am, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On May 7, 11:26 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: > > > > > His posts make an interesting and competent reading on these > > > matters, that's what I meant. > > > > For interesting and competent reading, I recommend Don Knuth's > > article: > > > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/9205211v1.pdf > > > > Knuth's discussion of 0^0 and the uses of Libri's function > > 0^(0^x), contained mostly on pp. 5-6 of that article, is much more > > interesting and worth reading than anything I've seen here. > > The section on Wikipedia discussing the historical argument as to > whether or not 0^0 should be defined as 1 looks remarkably similar > to Knuth's discussion.
No accident. Wikipedia cites that paper. It also quotes the relevant section of the book, Concrete Mathematics, in full.