[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

*Subject*: [amsat-bb] 0^0 Reprise!*From*: "Stacey E. Mills, M.D." <w4sm@xxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:04:31 -0500

OK, I admit it, I'm hooked on this minor point....but a little more reading suggests that maybe Roy Welch and I didn't have such bad math. teachers: The following comes from: http://forum.swarthmore.edu/dr.math/faq/faq.0.to.0.power.html What is 0 to the 0 power? This answer is adapted from an entry in the sci.math Frequently Asked Questions file, which is Copyright (c) 1994 Hans de Vreught (hdev@cp.tn.tudelft.nl). According to some Calculus textbooks, 0^0 is an "indeterminate form." What mathematicians mean by "indeterminate form" is that in some cases we think about it as having one value, and in other cases we think about it as having another. [snip] Other than the times when we want it to be indeterminate, 0^0 = 1 seems to be the most useful choice for 0^0 . This convention allows us to extend definitions in different areas of mathematics that would otherwise require treating 0 as a special case. Notice that 0^0 is a discontinuity of the function f(x,y) = x^y, because no matter what number you assign to 0^0, you can't make x^y continuous at (0,0), since the limit along the line x=0 is 0, and the limit along the line y=0 is 1. This means that depending on the context where 0^0 occurs, you might wish to substitute it with 1, indeterminate or undefined/nonexistent. Some people feel that giving a value to a function with an essential discontinuity at a point, such as x^y at (0,0), is an inelegant patch and should not be done. Others point out correctly that in mathematics, usefulness and consistency are very important, and that under these parameters 0^0 = 1 is the natural choice. The following is a list of reasons why 0^0 should be 1. Rotando & Korn show that if f and g are real functions that vanish at the origin and are analytic at 0 (infinitely differentiable is not sufficient), then f(x)^g(x) approaches 1 as f(x)^g(x) approaches 0 from the right. >From Concrete Mathematics p.162 (R. Graham, D. Knuth, O. Patashnik): Some textbooks leave the quantity 0^0 undefined, because the functions 0^x and x^0 have different limiting values when x decreases to 0. But this is a mistake. We must define x^0=1 for all x , if the binomial theorem is to be valid when x=0 , y=0 , and/or x=-y . The theorem is too important to be arbitrarily restricted! By contrast, the function 0^x is quite unimportant. Published by Addison-Wesley, 2nd printing Dec, 1988. As a rule of thumb, one can say that 0^0 = 1 , but 0.0^(0.0) is undefined, meaning that when approaching from a different direction there is no clearly predetermined value to assign to 0.0^(0.0) ; but Kahan has argued that 0.0^(0.0) should be 1, because if f(x), g(x) --> 0 as x approaches some limit, and f(x) and g(x) are analytic functions, then f(x)^g(x) --> 1 . The discussion of 0^0 is very old. Euler argues for 0^0 = 1 since a^0 = 1 for a not equal to 0 . The controversy raged throughout the nineteenth century, but was mainly conducted in the pages of the lesser journals: Grunert's Archiv and Schlomilch's Zeitshrift. Consensus has recently been built around setting the value of 0^0 = 1 . ****So there you go**** References Knuth. Two notes on notation. (AMM 99 no. 5 (May 1992), 403-422). H. E. Vaughan. The expression ' 0^0 '. Mathematics Teacher 63 (1970), pp.111-112. Louis M. Rotando and Henry Korn. The Indeterminate Form 0^0 . Mathematics Magazine, Vol. 50, No. 1 (January 1977), pp. 41-42. L. J. Paige,. A note on indeterminate forms. American Mathematical Monthly, 61 (1954), 189-190; reprinted in the Mathematical Association of America's 1969 volume, Selected Papers on Calculus, pp. 210-211. Baxley & Hayashi. A note on indeterminate forms. American Mathematical Monthly, 85 (1978), pp. 484-486. -- __________________________________________________________________________ Stacey E. Mills, W4SM WWW: http://www.cstone.net/~w4sm/ham1.html Charlottesville, VA PGP key: http://www.cstone.net/~w4sm/key.asc __________________________________________________________________________ ---- Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA. To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org

- Prev by Date:
**Kansas City Tracker - missing rotor.dat file** - Next by Date:
**Re: Keps for RS-18** - Prev by thread:
**Kansas City Tracker - missing rotor.dat file** - Next by thread:
**FO-20 glitch** - Index(es):