[seqfan] Re: Without any discussion

[Dmitry Kamenetsky]

David Wilson wrote:
> The reason I asked this question is because NJAS took issue with a b-file I 
> submitted for A061862 which treated 0^0 as 1, e.g, I included elements such 
> as
>
>     308 = 3^5 + 0^0 + 8^2
>
> evaluating 0^0 = 1. NJAS requested that I recompute the b-file, disallowing 
> 0^0 = 1.
>   
Well that really changes things. Although 99.99% of mathematicians might 
agree with you that 0^0=1, there is still a small percentage that 
wouldn't agree. Therefore, you should not have this possible ambiguity 
in a definition. Although you could have it, if you state it explicitly. 
Thats my opinion anyway.

Dmitry