Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0
Replies: 8   Last Post: Nov 18, 2013 10:49 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Dan Christensen Posts: 8,219 Registered: 7/9/08
Re: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0
Posted: Nov 18, 2013 10:36 PM

On Monday, November 18, 2013 5:58:50 PM UTC-5, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> "Dan Christensen" <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
>

> > On Sunday, November 17, 2013 5:30:00 PM UTC-5, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
>
> >> On Sunday, 17 November 2013 22:05:01 UTC, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>

> >> > Just prove that for all binary functions ^ on N we have:
>
> >>
>
> >> > ALL(a):[a e N => [a=/=0 => a^0 = 1]
>
> >> > & ALL(a):ALL(b):[a e N & b e N => a^(b+1) = a^b * a]
>
> >> > <=> 0^0 = 1
>
> >>
>
> >> > I have already proven the contrary, but don't let that stop you.
>
> >>
>
> >> You haven't done any such thing,
>
> >
>
> > Yes, I have. See Theorem 1 in my original posting. Any value, not just 1,
>
> > will work for 0^0, hence its ambiguity.
>
>
>
> Nope, you haven't, your Theorem 1 is just not "the contrary" of the theorem
>
> you have asked me for.

You really aren't very good at this, are you, Julio? To say that there are infinitely many exponent-like functions is certain contrary to saying there is only one such function.

Dan
Visit my new math blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Date Subject Author
11/18/13 LudovicoVan
11/18/13 Dan Christensen
11/18/13 LudovicoVan
11/18/13 Peter Percival
11/18/13 LudovicoVan
11/18/13 Peter Percival
11/18/13 LudovicoVan
11/18/13 Dan Christensen