🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 00:37:29 UTC No. 16366969
The age old question. What is 0 multiplied by itself 0 times?
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 00:39:41 UTC No. 16366976
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/I
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 00:42:44 UTC No. 16366986
>>16366969
No such thing as 0 bro
1x1=2
No straight lines in nature.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 00:43:19 UTC No. 16366990
>>16366976
Sorry anon, I wasn't asking for the applied physicist response
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 00:47:45 UTC No. 16367006
>>16366990
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dic
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 00:48:03 UTC No. 16367008
It's simply undefined and that can be proven in just the first few weeks of UG Real Analysis/Advanced Calculus. If you define it as 1, it can cause some issues.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 00:48:19 UTC No. 16367009
>>16366976
identity elements dont exist
>>16366986
/thread
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 01:12:56 UTC No. 16367113
>>16366969
Limit of x^x as x goes to 0 is 1 + x ln(x) + ...
0^0 approaches 1
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 02:31:45 UTC No. 16367306
>>16366969
0^0=0^1*0^-1
0^1 and 0^-1 = 0
0*0=0
0^0=0^1*0^-1
0^1*0^-1=0^1/0^1
0^1=0
0/0=undefined
idk
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 04:48:18 UTC No. 16367441
>>16367113
not in the continuous exponent case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 05:01:05 UTC No. 16367449
>>16366969
It's defined as 1.
Any number raised to the power of 0 is 1.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 05:14:30 UTC No. 16367459
>>16367449
>Any number raised to the power of 0 is 1.
Why?
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 06:54:34 UTC No. 16367559
>>16366986
>No straight lines in nature
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 07:13:52 UTC No. 16367576
>>16366969
Is there any scenario in which 0^0 being different from 1 is preferable?
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 08:14:15 UTC No. 16367637
>>16367459
A^3 = A * A * A
A^2 = A^3 / A = A * A
A^1 = A^2 / A = A
A^0 = A^1 / A = 1
A^-1 = A^0 / A = 1/A
>>16367008
What are the issues?
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 08:15:48 UTC No. 16367643
>>16367306
0^-1 = 1 / 0 = undefined :P
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 08:17:52 UTC No. 16367645
>>16366986
this but unironically
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 10:23:36 UTC No. 16367800
>>16366969
You define it to be whatever you want. There's nothing special about defining it to be 0, 1 or undefined whatever, as long as you can prove it doesn't break other math if you hold it to be true.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 11:04:02 UTC No. 16367843
>>16366969
For any number A A^n = 1 x A x A x A x ...x A (with m appearing n times in this list: this is indeed the shortest definition of programmable power you could design although not the most efficient to perform the actual computation). Hence A^0 = A for any A, including 0.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 11:10:43 UTC No. 16367856
A^B is the number of maps between a set having B elements and a set having A elements. And there is exactly one map from the empty set to the empty set (which is the empty set itself).
Also, real analysis doesn't disprove that 0^0 =1. Instead it proves that there is no continuous map f from [0,+oo[ x [0,+oo[ to [0,+oo[ such that f(x,y) = x^y for every x,y such that x>0 and y>0. This is an entirely different thing.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 11:56:16 UTC No. 16367923
>>16367559
not him
your example does not show a staight line, it only shows it good enough on a macromolucular scale.
if you try to calculate the circumference of a island you will come up with an infinite circumference if you try to look closer and closer.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 12:16:25 UTC No. 16367952
>>16367008
Moving the goal post.
>>16367856
>>16367843
>>16367637
/thread
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 23:44:40 UTC No. 16368931
>>16367637
doesnt work.
cant divide by 0.
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 23:51:25 UTC No. 16368940
>>16367923
stfu
Anonymous at Sun, 8 Sep 2024 23:54:48 UTC No. 16368943
>>16368931
True. The only legitimate answer to
>What is X multiplied by itself 0 times?
is that nothing has been multiplied and no multiplication has occurred. So we are left with a simple green screen background with nothing other than the "times" identity, 1.
Anonymous at Mon, 9 Sep 2024 00:58:29 UTC No. 16369016
>>16367952
I don't see how it is moving the goal posts. Treat it as one and start proofing some really simple derivatives. You'll see. You'll likely end up with some nonsensical infinitesimals that you can't make work.
Anonymous at Mon, 9 Sep 2024 01:01:01 UTC No. 16369018
>>16369016
NTA but how does 0^0 = 1 end up with nonsensical infinitesimals unleess you change the equal sign to mean something other than equal?
Anonymous at Mon, 9 Sep 2024 05:31:50 UTC No. 16369250
>>16366986
>1x1=2
>No straight lines in nature.
How can 1x1 ever possibly go straight to 2 if there is no straight line from 1 to 2?
Anonymous at Mon, 9 Sep 2024 06:00:53 UTC No. 16369279
>>16367008
Also floor(x) is undefined when x is an integer.
Anonymous at Mon, 9 Sep 2024 09:34:36 UTC No. 16369423
>>16366986
>No straight lines in nature.
>Be in vacuum
>Have some momentum (p)
>Move in straight line with constant velocity
Guess you are wrong.
Anonymous at Mon, 9 Sep 2024 21:02:49 UTC No. 16370443
>>16366969
It seems a lot more sensible to say that any non-zero value raised to the power of zero is one rather than that zero to the power of any number is zero UNLESS that number is zero, in which case a non-zero value comes from a manipulation of nothings.
Anonymous at Mon, 9 Sep 2024 21:30:10 UTC No. 16370510
Anonymous at Wed, 11 Sep 2024 13:45:55 UTC No. 16374224
>>16366986
What is this terryology?
Anonymous at Wed, 11 Sep 2024 14:25:38 UTC No. 16374272
0^0 can be anything depending on how you got there
its what you call a non-removable singularity or pole or some shit of infinite degree
Anonymous at Wed, 11 Sep 2024 17:53:08 UTC No. 16374593
It's infinite. 0 and ∞ are synonymous. You cannot calculate either and it's merely how you perceive the number in terms of a given context of application. 0 is a placeholder. ∞ is a placeholder. It's just that 0 is easier to write and use in binary computation I guess.
Anonymous at Wed, 11 Sep 2024 18:48:47 UTC No. 16374652
>>16374593
>t. jacques derrida's ass gerbil
Anonymous at Wed, 11 Sep 2024 22:23:55 UTC No. 16375006
>>16369423
>zoom in
>realize the straight line was only approximate
>is it less of a straight line because it's the result of random fluxuations averaging to zero? It's still a type of straight line.
>mfw
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 00:46:26 UTC No. 16375237
>>16370443
Well, to me it seems a lot more sensible to say that any non-zero value raised to the power of zero is one rather that any number to the power of zero is one UNLESS that number is zero, in which case a zero value comes from a product of nothing.
If not multiplying by anything is supposed to be zero, then if I consider the product from n=1 to 2 of 2, I should get zero instead of 4. Why? Well, because I multiplied two by two, and then I didn't multiply by anything more after that, and, according to you, not multiplying by anything should be 0.
Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 01:01:51 UTC No. 16375255
>>16369423
There is no interval you could measure which would reveal if the line is straight or not.
Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 01:08:52 UTC No. 16375271
>>16375255
Literally just unroll some toilet paper and see if the edge follows the line
Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 01:24:02 UTC No. 16375294
>>16370443
>not multiplying by anything is 1 UNLESS you're not multiplying by zero, in which case a zero value comes from a product of nothings.
Yeah that doesn't make any sense, sorry.
Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 06:17:25 UTC No. 16375602
>>16366969
lim, x->0 (x^x) = 0
otherwise 0^0 is undefined
Anonymous at Thu, 12 Sep 2024 06:20:01 UTC No. 16375603
>>16375602
>lim, x->0 (x^x) = 0
is meant to be lim, x->0 (x^x) = 1