Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Google gives 0^0=1

  1. Dec 13, 2011 #1
    they also gave 2 instead 288 on the infamous equation. who works in the math department for google?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 13, 2011 #2
    when i was young, i use scratch book instead of calculator to do math

    and now people use google instead of calculator to do math
     
  4. Dec 13, 2011 #3
    when i was young, i use calculator instead of google to do math

    and now people use wolfram alpha instead of google to do math
     
  5. Dec 13, 2011 #4
    What is the "infamous" equation?
     
  6. Dec 13, 2011 #5

    Dembadon

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    He probably means 48÷2(9+3). We shouldn't talk about it, though. :wink:
     
  7. Dec 13, 2011 #6
    I am as idiot as google. I thought zero to the power zero equaled one, too.
     
  8. Dec 13, 2011 #7
    I could be very very wrong about this, but as I understand it, while 0^0 is technically undefined, it's often defined as 1 to simplify certain problems.
     
  9. Dec 13, 2011 #8
    It's 2. :biggrin:
     
  10. Dec 13, 2011 #9
    No, it's not.

    Please do not let this thread turn in another debate about 48÷2(9+3) or this thread will be locked.

    See here for the "infamous equation": https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=494675
    See here for [itex]0^0[/itex]: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=530207 [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  11. Dec 13, 2011 #10

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Wolframalpha is the the best resource out there for a lazy person who doesn't care about his math skills.

    Yes, google can't be trusted.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 13, 2011
  12. Dec 13, 2011 #11
    has anyone read 'Stories of your life and others' by Ted Chiang?

    one of the stories deals with 0/0
     
  13. Dec 13, 2011 #12

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It has so many values for physical constants that are outdated or flat-out wrong. Avogadro's number, the astronomical unit, Newton's gravitational constant, pick one: It's probably wrong to some degree or another. For example, the google calculator value for the AU differs from the published value by 129 kilometers. The uncertainty in the published value is 3 meters.
     
  14. Dec 13, 2011 #13

    dlgoff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'd rather use my [STRIKE]slid[/STRIKE] slide rule after hearing all of this. :)
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  15. Dec 13, 2011 #14

    jhae2.718

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Not this crap again! :cry:
     
  16. Dec 13, 2011 #15

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    *wonders of slid rule is the past tense of slide rule*
     
  17. Dec 13, 2011 #16
    *wonders if of is future tense of if*
     
  18. Dec 13, 2011 #17

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    :redface:
     
  19. Dec 13, 2011 #18

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    My slide rule won't calculate 0^0, so it must be undefined.
     
  20. Dec 13, 2011 #19

    dlgoff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Dang. I've been looking for that Zero all day. Go figure.
     
  21. Dec 13, 2011 #20

    dlgoff

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Notice my reason for editing. I just slid it back into its sheath.
     
  22. Dec 14, 2011 #21
    This is quite the judgment passed to people you don't even know!

    I am not lazy, nor do I not care about my math skills. Yet, I use wolfram alpha all the time.
     
  23. Dec 14, 2011 #22

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You might have misunderstood my sentence. It doesn't apply to all people, but only to some of them.
     
  24. Dec 14, 2011 #23
    If you bang:
    48/2(9+3)
    Into google. It spits out 288. It even rewrites it so the 'maths grammar' is correct.

    I DECLARE USER ERROR!

    This thread can surely be solved by the user having a brain, and realising that you aren't using a sophisicated calculator. It's designed for idiots, adding things up.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2011
  25. Dec 14, 2011 #24
    thats cause they changed it, it gave 2 before.
     
  26. Dec 14, 2011 #25

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Thread closed for a bit...
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook