
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 UTC5, Julio Di Egidio wrote: > "Dan Christensen" <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in message > > news:dc39f5bdb7a24ea38aea76ac799c9d21@googlegroups.com... > > > On Sunday, November 17, 2013 5:30:00 PM UTC5, 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 exponentlike functions is certain contrary to saying there is only one such function.
Dan Download my DC Proof 2.0 software at http://www.dcproof.com Visit my new math blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

