David Carlton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 15:54:03 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: | > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | On 2005-03-10 01:01:18 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | | > | > The asseryion that 0^0 is mathematically undefined is not a bogus | > | > reason. It is a fact. | > | | > | I disagree. One can mathematically define 0^0 as 1. One often does | > | this. | | > what you do is to set a local convention regardless of all | > mathematical absurdities you run into. | | No, you follow the convention that all mathematicians that I know of | follow, because it's generally recognized as the most useful one.
Please given references -- not just unnamed mathematicians you claim to know. To some extent, I already quoted the disposition of LIA-2 -- language independent arithmetic, part 2. | Maybe there are mathematical subcultures in which a different | convention (or no convention) is followed; I haven't spent time in | such cultures. But if it's a "local convention", then it's one for a | very large value of "local". Please consider the limit of x^y when you have both x and y go to zero. Also, consider the LIA-2 disposition I alresdy provided. -- Gaby
