0^0 = 1?

04242017, 06:24 AM
Post: #21




RE: [wp34s] 0^0 = 1?
(04242017 04:26 AM)Thomas Okken Wrote: No, it's because they don't change the subject by introducing transformations that cause you to end up looking at a completely different problem. How was the subject changed? How is it a completely different problem? What "transformations" were introduced? (04242017 04:26 AM)Thomas Okken Wrote: Consider lim (x>0) x/x. I don't think it's controversial to say that that is 1. Now take lim (x>0) f(x)/g(x), where f(x) and g(x) are nice, wellbehaved functions, both zero at x=0, both with a nonzero derivative at x=0, continuously differentiable, etc. etc. etc. The point above isn't clear. Can you clarify? I was with you until "Does this lead..." Making the limit come out to whatever is desired want is one of the properties of dealing with indeterminate forms, whether dealing with 0^0 or 0/0 or 1^inf or etc. This property is why indeterminate forms do not have assigned values in general (only in some special cases). 

04252017, 11:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 04252017 11:22 AM by AlexFekken.)
Post: #22




RE: [wp34s] 0^0 = 1?
"Now take lim (x>0) f(x)/g(x), where f(x) and g(x) are nice, wellbehaved functions..."
Actually, making these assumptions is changing the problem. The original problem is the behaviour of x^y near (x=0, y=0) and whether that justifies defining 0^0 to be 1. No f's, no g's and certainly no assumptions that these function need to be so nice that they behave like polynomials around (0, 0). The examples (even just considering those with both x and y positive real numbers and choosing principal values) clearly show that (uniquely) defining 0^0 is a bad choice. The only justification given so far for choosing 0^0 to be 1 comes from a context in which y is limited to integers, e.g. looking at power series (including polynomials) and making it easy to write the general term with a variable exponent without making an exception for an exponent of 0. This is certainly not a numerical context but an algebraic one and so it seems irrelevant when we are talking about numerical evaluations. 

04252017, 03:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 04252017 07:34 PM by Felix Gross.)
Post: #23




RE: [wp34s] 0^0 = 1?
The 0^0 issue has puzzled me for quite a while. So like the extensive discussion. Here are my two cents.
Major commercial math programs do not agree on the handling. Mathematica returns an "Indeterminate", Matlab a "1". The latter was suggested as "useful" by Donald Knuth in his seminal book. IEEE seems to agree. The seminal NIST Handbook on Mathematical Functions does not. So basically there seems no real answer, just useful conventions. Enclosed are my notes showing that calculators take different approaches. I also listed some references from both sides of the aisle. Would be fun to collect more on these results. Please let me know if you find errors in my notes. Felix Edit: Attachment attached 

04252017, 07:53 PM
Post: #24




RE: [wp34s] 0^0 = 1?
(04252017 03:00 PM)Felix Gross Wrote: Enclosed are my notes showing that calculators take different approaches. I also listed some references from both sides of the aisle. I'm not sure what machines/programs in your results do have an integer mode and may, eventually, return different answers in both real/integer (even complex) modes. The more I read about this topic, the more convinced I am about the "correctness" of the 1 result when dealing with integers. 

04262017, 06:03 AM
Post: #25




RE: [wp34s] 0^0 = 1?
(04252017 03:00 PM)Felix Gross Wrote: The 0^0 issue has puzzled me for quite a while. So like the extensive discussion.Excellent notes! I'm with Knuth and the IEEE. Quote:So basically there seems no real answer, just useful conventions. For me, that's mathematics! As an undergraduate, our courses in pure mathematics were fairly strictly divided between Algebra and Analysis. The two answers we're seeing here seem to reflect that division well. (There was also a greater division between pure and applied. And numerical methods sat somewhere nearby as a third area, closer to applied.) 

04262017, 06:40 AM
Post: #26




RE: [wp34s] 0^0 = 1?
The WP 34S conforms to ISO/IEC 9899:2011 for real and complex arguments.
Simplistically, for reals x^{0} = 1 for all x, including NaNs. For complex numbers x^{y} = e^{y.log(x)} for all x and y.  Pauli 

04272017, 04:55 AM
(This post was last modified: 04272017 05:01 AM by Chris Dreher.)
Post: #27




RE: [wp34s] 0^0 = 1?
(04252017 03:00 PM)Felix Gross Wrote: Enclosed are my notes showing that calculators take different approaches. I also listed some references from both sides of the aisle. Nice document! Here's a few extra datapoints:


04272017, 05:48 AM
Post: #28




RE: [wp34s] 0^0 = 1?
Maple V3 returns:
Error, 0^0 is undefined 

04272017, 03:35 PM
(This post was last modified: 04272017 08:17 PM by d b.)
Post: #29




RE: [wp34s] 0^0 = 1?
Would any of you posting on this thread mind if I move it to General, as Gerald suggested in Issues and Administration?
That might be where someone would first look to review this in the future, but it did fit in "not quite hp" to start with. Addendum: moved & title modified per the two following posts from Bob and emece67 

04272017, 04:28 PM
Post: #30




RE: [wp34s] 0^0 = 1?
Maybe change title to 'How do different machines represent 0^0" when you move it, since the discussion went well beyond only the wp34s, and a casual reader may skip it if they are not interested in the wp34s.
Bob Prosperi 

04272017, 05:32 PM
(This post was last modified: 04272017 09:04 PM by emece67.)
Post: #31




RE: [wp34s] 0^0 = 1?
(04272017 03:35 PM)Den Belillo (Martinez Ca.) Wrote: Would any of you posting on this thread mind if I move it to General, as Gerald suggested in Issues and Administration As the TP, I think it is a reasonable and desirable move. (04272017 04:28 PM)rprosperi Wrote: Maybe change title to 'How do different machines represent 0^0" when you move it, since the discussion went well beyond only the wp34s, and a casual reader may skip it if they are not interested in the wp34s. Simply removing the "(wp34s)" from the title may be enough. Regards. 

04272017, 08:01 PM
Post: #32




RE: 0^0 = 1?
Thanks for the new datapoints. Will check other calculators over the next days.
Updated the document. Felix 

04272017, 11:20 PM
Post: #33




RE: 0^0 = 1?  
04272017, 11:46 PM
(This post was last modified: 04272017 11:47 PM by Craig Bladow.)
Post: #34




RE: 0^0 = 1?
These are the results from the following calculators (not emulators)
HP41C "DATA ERROR" HP25 "Error" HP11c "Error 0" HP48GX "1" HP32SII "INVALID yX" HP35s "INVALID yX" HP42S "Invalid Data" CC41 coming soon! 

04272017, 11:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 06062017 01:03 AM by matthiaspaul.)
Post: #35




RE: 0^0 = 1?
HP 48GX > 1
HP 30b > 1 TI85 > ERROR 04 DOMAIN Sharp PC1475 in CALC mode > E 0 Sharp PC1475 in BASIC mode (single & double precision) > ERROR 2 Kaufhof Astor 1 > E 0 Windows XP CALC > 1 EDIT: Casio fx85MS > Math ERROR HP 200LX (D) > "Fehlermeldung: 0 kann nicht mit 0 potenziert werden" (EDIT: NB regarding the "Astor 1"  this calculator comes in a case and finish/color set identical to that of the Casio fx570, but the functions and key assignments are different, so it must be a Casio OEM model of around the same time frame.)  "Programs are poems for computers." 

04282017, 04:57 AM
Post: #36




RE: 0^0 = 1?
How zeros (and ones) are treated depends on use. The most common definition for 0^0 by mathematicians is 1. Basically this comes from combinatorial arguments. The only case where another definition would make sense is in looking at 0^0 with both the base and exponent as reals. Then there is a pathdependent answer.
To get the binomial coefficients to come out right, one should define 0^0 as 1. Some computer languages define 0^0 as 1 if both zeros are integers and zero if the exponent is zero and the base is real. An real exponent is undefined as there are many branch points to the exponential. I'd go for 1 in general; it's rare that another number would be more useful. Similarly the sum of an empty list should be 0 and the product of an empty list should be 1. 

04282017, 07:39 AM
(This post was last modified: 04282017 09:19 PM by pier4r.)
Post: #37




RE: 0^0 = 1?
I'm puzzled by the fact that 0^0 has no mainstream convention (seeing the responses of various calculators) . Since mathematics, once set axioms and conventions, is pretty consistent.
edit, the sharp 506w: error. Wikis are great, Contribute :) 

04282017, 04:50 PM
Post: #38




RE: 0^0 = 1?
(04282017 04:57 AM)ttw Wrote: How zeros (and ones) are treated depends on use. The most common definition for 0^0 by mathematicians is 1. Basically this comes from combinatorial arguments. The only case where another definition would make sense is in looking at 0^0 with both the base and exponent as reals. Then there is a pathdependent answer. Actually, most mathematician regard 0^0 as an Indeterminate Form. They do not regard it as 1 (or 0) unless there are additional constraints. 

04282017, 05:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 04282017 05:50 PM by Han.)
Post: #39




RE: 0^0 = 1?
(04282017 04:50 PM)Chris Dreher Wrote: Actually, most mathematician regard 0^0 as an Indeterminate Form. They do not regard it as 1 (or 0) unless there are additional constraints. 0^0 is indeed indeterminate and takes on different values depending on the context. Defining 0^0 = 1 for various applications is neither "wrong" nor "right"  it is merely a choice that makes the subsequent mathematical results useful. Graph 3D  QPI  SolveSys 

04282017, 07:18 PM
Post: #40




RE: 0^0 = 1?
My HP35 1143S gives blinking zero for every base value ^ 0.
But e.g. 10^0 = 1 for sure. 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)