On Monday, November 18, 2013 6:17:13 PM UTC-5, Peter Percival wrote: > Dan Christensen wrote: > > > > > While 0^0 = 1 may make sense in some applications, it doesn't make > > > sense if you are trying to formalize the notion repeated > > > multiplication of natural numbers. As I have shown here, it is only > > > one of infinite possibilities. > > > > You count 0 among the natural numbers, don't you?
For the purposes of this discussion, yes.
> If you can multiply > > any finite number of numbers together, say n of them, then the case n = > > 0 ought to be included.
You mean x^0?
> So if you multiply the numbers in the empty set > > together what do you get? >
Surely, you aren't going suggest that the answer is 1. Not that it would be relevant in any case.