[seqfan] Re: Without any discussion

[David Wilson]

I'm not sure that 99% of mathematicians would agree with me (or even care). 
That's why I took the poll. I got enough 1's to know I'm not completely 
crazy.

In a situation where the exponent were continuous, I wouldn't argue that 0^0 
= 1. The value would depend on the path of approach.

But in the realm of discrete exponents (number theory, set theory, 
combinatorics, series, etc), 0^0 = 1 is the only value that makes sense.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dmitry Kamenetsky" <Dmitry.Kamenetsky at nicta.com.au>
To: "Sequence Fanatics Discussion list" <seqfan at list.seqfan.eu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 4:10 AM
Subject: [seqfan] Re: Without any discussion


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Seqfan Mailing list - http://list.seqfan.eu/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.72/2337 - Release Date: 08/31/09 
05:50:00