It makes little reason to speak about $0^x$ and $\log_0 x$ on the set of real numbers, but in matrices, it seems, the expressions coincide, for instance,
$0^ \left( \begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} \\ \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} \\ \end{array} \right)=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} \\ -\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} \\ \end{array} \right)=\log_0 \left( \begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} \\ \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} \\ \end{array} \right),$
where $0$ is meant to be zero matrix. Since all hypercomplex numbers can be represented in matrix form, logarithm with base zero makes sense there as well, and its equivalence to the powers of zero still holds. For instance, in split-complex numbers we have
$0^{1/2+j/2}=1/2-j/2= \log_0 (1/2+j/2),$
$0^{1/2-j/2}=1/2+j/2= \log_0 (1/2-j/2).$
As such, I wonder, whether it would be sensible to claim $\log_0 x=0^x$ in all other contexts? Is there some proof or expansion that would show this is the case?
I asked a similar question on math.stackexchange but was heavily downvoted and the question was closed because, as some users claimed "logarithm with zero base has no sense".
MatrixFunction
in Mathematica. $\endgroup$