0^0=1
why?
>x/0=y
>why?
Will this thread get more than 100 replies?
>>7967427
it's notation. it works nice in bigger expressions
basically ^0 means you're taking an empty product which is by convention the identity
>>7967427
Because we defined it that way.
>>7967475
maths is the universal language.
If we posited 0^0=1 to an alien race, they would not understand
>>7967484
Man what the fuck
Are we even sure of it ? I mean, I'm okay with any number if it's not 0. The idea of the power and all this is to make a multiplication shorter. Why the heck would we cumulate multiplications of 0 ? I can follow the logic of the elevator, like :
"x^2 =x*x ; x^1=x -> x^1=x^2/x -> x^0=x^1/x=x/x=1"
But can we consider it as right for 0 ?
It is easy to explain why 0!=1, but for this problem, I am not even sure that it's right or it exists
>>7967427
a^b means:
multiply the number a by the number 1 for a total of b times.
What is 2^0, well it's 2 multiplied by 1 for 0 times, so that is 1.
What is 0^2, well it's 0 multiplied by 1 for 2 times, so that's 0.
What's 0^0, well that's 0 multiplied by 1 for 0 times, so that's 1.
checkm8 atheists
>>7967522
You sure of your explanation ? I mean, to me, it's rather a multiplied by a for a total of b times.
Elseway, if you do it like you explain it, for 2^3, it's 2*1*1*1=2. It has not a single interest.
>>7967522
But if something is multiplied by 1 for 0 times that means it is never multiplied by 1 so if nothing happened to it how can it change value?
>>7967484
Doesn't seem complete to me : (-2)^(-2) does exist : it's equal to 1/(-2)^2 = 1/4
>>7967522
>a^b means:
>multiply the number a by the number 1 for a total of b times.
No
>>7967522
you stole that from khan academy
>>7967544
only the integers, senpai
>>7967544
The function is not steady for values < 0, thus those are not graphed
Also, x=-2 is not even on there
well, let's post some links http://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-exponents-why-does-00-1/
didn't check the full content, though, but seems rather well done to me
>>7967554
why not have the real parts for negative fractions instead of leaving them out?
