ohwilleke's latest activity

I agree with that, because that's the way I learned it: a^0 is defined as 1. Only now do I see why it is so.

I think this is one of those things that we 'learn' first - as a bit of trickery and then follow it up with a believable proof.

Nearly the best answer!

Very similar to post #6. $$ a^0=a^{x-x}=\frac{a^x}{a^x}=1 $$

##a^0=a^1a^{-1}=a\frac{1}{a}=1##

Another way to look at it ##a^0 = 1## ##a * a^0 = a * 1## ##a^1 = a## Of course you can reverse the steps and conclude that ##a^0...

Or, more generally, ##a^{n+m}=a^na^m## implies ##a^0=1##, because otherwise ##a^{n+0}\neq a^n##.

It's consistent with ##a^{n+1}=a\cdot a^n##

they are a lot of elegant results that are just generic of the theory of quadrics. Basically it is possible, except for the integrality...

π/12 appears as part of a formula for a Koide phase in the neutral leptons (see Brannen's "Koide Mass Formula for Neutrinos"), not...

Actually three :oldbiggrin: Mine was removed because just resending now causes an autodelete, even if the resend includes doi and...

Neither author has prior work on Koide that I can see. Hübner did some QCD and thus he knows QFT topics like renormalization schemes...

Time ago the hard printed edition of the pdf had a last page with an illustration of how the measures had evolved across editions...

It could be interesting to invite them to the thread. I do not see traces of a larger field theory program, here the most advanced thing...

I thought of posting this under Particle Physics, but it does go slightly beyond standard model, and in a way that could point to some...