Timeline for Given a sequence defined on the positive integers, how should it be extended to be defined at zero?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 19, 2009 at 21:37 | comment | added | Alex Fink | When is it actually useful, in practice, to set 0^0 not equal to 1? | |
| Oct 19, 2009 at 7:12 | history | edited | Simon Wadsley | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 145 characters in body
|
| Oct 19, 2009 at 7:12 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | I would argue as follows. If you're a combinatorialist who accepts that 0! = 1, you accept that there is one bijection from the empty set to itself, so you accept that there is one function from the empty set to itself, so you should accept that 0^0 = 1. | |
| Oct 19, 2009 at 7:06 | history | answered | Simon Wadsley | CC BY-SA 2.5 |