Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 LudovicoVan Posts: 3,201 From: London Registered: 2/8/08
Re: Formal proof of the ambiguity of 0^0
Posted: Nov 18, 2013 10:42 PM

"Dan Christensen" <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> 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.

Keep dreaming.

Julio

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