ewx: (Default)
Richard Kettlewell ([personal profile] ewx) wrote2006-06-05 01:38 pm
Entry tags:
simont: A picture of me in 2016 (Default)

[personal profile] simont 2006-06-05 12:47 pm (UTC)(link)
Knuth's argument looks compelling at first sight, but it is conditional on there needing to exist a single undisputed power function for all occasions, and I think this is simply false. When working with the binomial theorem, the meaning of exponentiation must certainly be taken to involve 00 being 1; but in other contexts this need not be the case, it can be undefined or zero or 42 or whatever the hell it likes, and we resolve the dispute with Knuth by pointing out that his exponentiation and ours aren't necessarily the same thing. Where it matters, make it clear.

[identity profile] senji.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 12:57 pm (UTC)(link)
The logic inherent in
Anybody who wants the binomial theorem (x + y)^n = sum_(k = 0)^n (n\choose k) x^k y^(n - k) to hold for at least one nonnegative integer n must believe that 0^0 = 1
is flawed of course: they might just be disappointed…
emperor: (Default)

[personal profile] emperor 2006-06-05 12:59 pm (UTC)(link)
1) IANAMathmo, so know nothing
2) "1" seems the obvious answer as a^0=1 for a!=0
3) but 0^a=0 for a>0, so I could see an intuitive case for "0"
4) If you're doing this in code, you deserve to lose (TM), so I can see a case for "undefined"
5) clearly therefore "depends why you're asking" and "eh?" are the right answers
6) see 1.

[identity profile] cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 01:00 pm (UTC)(link)
Damn, I know I remember someone else talking about this, but can't remember where. I would say:

* There is no obvious choice, because in z=x^y you get a discontinuity whatever you do. (I mention this because high-school-mathmos often act as if one choice is inevitable, which it isn't)
* You may choose 0, 1 or undefined, whichever fits best.
* This will often be clear from context, but to be rigorous you should state it, or define your function in such a way it doesn't come up
* When you choose, 1 may be better because that's a more common choice (regardless of whether it's sensible in more mathemetical functions, which it may be, but I haven't thought about fully enough to say so)
ext_8103: (Default)

[identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 01:01 pm (UTC)(link)
*laugh* at userpic.
gerald_duck: (frontal)

[personal profile] gerald_duck 2006-06-05 01:08 pm (UTC)(link)
I tickyboxed 0 for exclusive-or as in C, and undefined for exponentiation. You didn't provide a "pair of glasses" option, or I'd have ticked that, too.

[identity profile] keirf.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 01:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Depends on whether you're taking 0^0 as 0^x as x->0 or x^0 as x->0.

[identity profile] kaet.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 01:13 pm (UTC)(link)
I just voted for 1 mainly for economic reasons, :). I'm sure that the amount of time wasted considering this question (thousands if not millions of dollars, my sources Messers I. and P. News inform me) has far outweighed the effort in just working around defining it to have one value.

The precident for this kind of agrument is that the null graph is now almost universally not considered a graph, mainly because almost no graph theorems applied to it, so it was considered a waste of time and ink, :).

We can't allow ourselves to be paralysed by choice, or we'll never get our flying cars or rocket suits! Therefore: one.

[identity profile] angoel.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 01:16 pm (UTC)(link)
x^y = e^(y ln x)

=>

0^0 = e^(0 ln 0) = e^0 = 1
simont: A picture of me in 2016 (Default)

[personal profile] simont 2006-06-05 01:38 pm (UTC)(link)
There's an unjustified step when you multiply 0 by -infinity and get 0.

[identity profile] uisgebeatha.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 02:20 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm going to remain blissfully unaware of what the answer actually is, but I'll guess at 0 or possibly 'everything breaks' like if you try to divide by zero. My maths skills are not strong, though. If I tried to do that in a program, though, I reckon it would explode.

Or perhaps it's all an elaborate ruse, and 0^0 is actually a crazy new smiley that represents a bird looking upwards? :)
reddragdiva: (Default)

[personal profile] reddragdiva 2006-06-05 02:32 pm (UTC)(link)
I read it as XOR too.
ext_8103: (Default)

[identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 02:36 pm (UTC)(link)
I'd have written 00 but the poll creator form didn't like it. It didn't like the answer of 0 either though posting the raw poll markup with it in still worked. I suspect crappy Perl programmers.
ext_8103: (Default)

[identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 02:38 pm (UTC)(link)
The discussions above seems reasonable (except [livejournal.com profile] angoel's but I expect he's joking...)

[identity profile] saraphale.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 03:22 pm (UTC)(link)
Ö

[identity profile] teleute.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 03:39 pm (UTC)(link)
generally a reasonable assumption, if he's talking about maths ;-)

[identity profile] bellinghman.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 03:43 pm (UTC)(link)
... when it obviously should be -0.

(Anonymous) 2006-06-05 04:38 pm (UTC)(link)
Limerick by David Jones, I think.
ext_8103: (Default)

[identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 04:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Who are you, oh anonymous person?

[identity profile] gareth-rees.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 04:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Someone who forgot to log in.

[identity profile] burkesworks.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 06:09 pm (UTC)(link)
While IANAmathmo, surely the only answer here can be "undefined". As far as I can remember, 0^x=0, and x^0=1, so both answers make some sort of sense. Or is there anything here that I have missed that is known only to students of arcane high-level maths?

[identity profile] wendym.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 07:32 pm (UTC)(link)
Ooo! Little round glasses!
gerald_duck: (Duckula)

[personal profile] gerald_duck 2006-06-05 08:43 pm (UTC)(link)
Equally, however, I don't want to be in a rocket suit when it divides by zero.

[identity profile] gareth-rees.livejournal.com 2006-06-05 10:42 pm (UTC)(link)
"Undefined" isn't quite the right word, because mathematicians can and do give definitions for 0⁰, for example [livejournal.com profile] simont noted above that Donald Knuth (http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/) defines 0⁰ = 1 in his book Concrete Mathematics (http://cs.ioc.ee/yik/lib/1/Graham1.html) so that the binomial theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_theorem) can be extended to negative numbers.

So it's not undefined, it's that you have a choice of definitions. That's because 0⁰ is an indeterminate form: it's an expression for which you can get different results if you take the limit as you let the subexpressions tend to their proper values. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form) explains this pretty clearly.

(However, 0⁰ = 1 has useful applications — the product of no numbers is 1, there's only one way to choose no objects from an empty set — and as far as I know other values don't.)

[identity profile] kaet.livejournal.com 2006-06-06 09:42 am (UTC)(link)
That's a good point. Particularly given what happened to Arianne Five when it did just that. Equally, though, I guess, that all the rocket-suit manufacturers are assuming the same value for 0^0 than each having their own, in the style of the famous lb/in^2,N mixup at JPL.

I sometimes wonder if the space industry exists primarily to keep comp.risks full of interesting articles.
ext_78: A picture of a plush animal. It looks a bit like a cross between a duck and a platypus. (Default)

[identity profile] pne.livejournal.com 2006-06-06 12:39 pm (UTC)(link)
I suspect crappy Perl programmers.

So do I.

There are various other places where 0 isn't allowed around LiveJournal. (I think the poll creator used not to like scales starting with 0, though that might have been fixed now; the username 0 doesn't work well, I think; etc.)

[identity profile] imc.livejournal.com 2006-06-12 09:43 am (UTC)(link)
http://community.livejournal.com/changelog/3265904.html :-)
ext_8103: (Default)

[identity profile] ewx.livejournal.com 2006-06-12 09:45 am (UTC)(link)
Excellent.