The discussion centers around the mathematical expression of zero raised to itself (0^0) and its implications in various contexts, including limits, logic systems, and indeterminate forms. Participants explore theoretical and conceptual aspects, as well as practical implications in mathematical reasoning.
Participants generally agree that 0^0 is indeterminate, but there are multiple competing views on its implications and interpretations. The discussion remains unresolved with differing opinions on how to approach the expression mathematically.
The discussion highlights limitations in definitions and the dependence on context, particularly in relation to limits and the behavior of functions approaching zero. There is also ambiguity in the mathematical entities represented by '0' and the operation '^'.
Originally posted by jcsd
No, you can only really use the formula to find a Fibonacci number when n is a natural number. But as F2 = 1 and F1 = 1, you can define F0 as 0 from the recurssive formula and this is how it is conventially defined.
0/1 is undefined and it's pretty easy to show that it cannot be a real or a complex number and thus you cannot perform algebraic operations on it.
S = k log w wrote:
O/1 is infinity, or indeterm., or undefined, or whatever.
jcsd wrote:
0/1 is undefined and it's pretty easy to show that it cannot be a real or a complex number and thus you cannot perform algebraic operations on it.
Originally posted by S = k log w
This is really interesting.
Look at this:
SQRT AND SQUARE
((+2)+(+2)) = +2^2
((-2)+(-2)) = -2^2
((+2)+(-2)+(+2)+(-2)) = 0^2
0^0 = ?
I think (hope) he meant -(2^2).Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Umm, ((-2)+(-2)) = -2^2? Want to rethink?
Originally posted by chroot
I think (hope) he meant -(2^2).
Don't forget PEMDAS...
- Warren