CTK Exchange
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Awards
Terms of use
Privacy Policy

Interactive Activities

Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Games & Puzzles
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
My Logo
Math Poll
Other Math sit's
Guest book
News sit's

Recommend this site

Manifesto: what CTK is about Search CTK Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Products to download and subscription Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page

CTK Exchange

Subject: "Numbers raised to the power of 0"     Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy     Email this topic to a friend    
Conferences The CTK Exchange Middle school Topic #113
Reading Topic #113
Chris Tolley
guest
May-19-05, 10:12 PM (EST)
 
"Numbers raised to the power of 0"
 
   Please can anyone explain to me why, when any real number is raised to the power of zero, the result is 1.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
Numbers raised to the power of 0 Chris Tolley May-19-05 TOP
  RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 alexb May-26-05 1
     RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 DWCantrell May-04-06 5
         RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 alexb May-04-06 6
             RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 DWCantrell May-05-06 7
                 RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 alexb May-05-06 9
                     RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 DWCantrell May-16-06 10
                         RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 alexb May-17-06 11
                             RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 DWCantrell May-18-06 12
                                 RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 alexb May-18-06 13
                                     RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 alexb Nov-27-06 14
         RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 Janine Jun-26-07 17
             RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 alexb Jul-04-07 18
     RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 aravindh Dec-03-06 15
  RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 Mark Huber May-26-05 2
  RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 guruganesh May-29-05 3
     RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 alexb May-29-05 4
  RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 Ryan Dec-16-06 16
  RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 Karen Kaul Jul-30-07 19
  RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 Chris Tolley Sep-30-07 20
  RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0 megamath Aug-25-08 21

Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic
alexb
Charter Member
2270 posts
May-26-05, 00:34 AM (EST)
Click to EMail alexb Click to send private message to alexb Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #0
 
   >Please can anyone explain to me why, when any real number is
>raised to the power of zero, the result is 1.

By definition, or you can say by common agreement. It's a convenience actually since then

ab·a-b = ab - b = 1.

However, most of the time 00 is left undefined.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
DWCantrell
guest
May-04-06, 09:25 AM (EST)
 
5. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #1
 
   >>Please can anyone explain to me why, when any real number is
>>raised to the power of zero, the result is 1.
>
>By definition, or you can say by common agreement.

When someone asks "Why?", I've never been very fond of answers of
that sort, although such answers are indeed often given. I'm not fond
of them because, to me at least, they seem to evade the basic issue:
_Why_ is it that we commonly agree to define something in a certain
way?

>It's a convenience actually since then
>
>ab∑a-b = ab - b = 1.

Yes, that's a reason for why we define it that way. But in my opinion, the "real" reason is much more compelling than mere "convenience". Below, I give my favorite answer to the question "Why is x0 = 1?" I will also try to make my answer appropriate to a middle school audience. Unfortunately, trying to do that will make the answer lengthy, so please bear with me.

>However, most of the time 00 is left undefined.

I'm not at all sure that's done most of the time _by
mathematicians_. But I regret to say that I agree that it is done
most of the time in elementary (pre-graduate school level) texts.
Therefore, I also briefly address the issue of 0^0 below.

---------------------------------------------------------------

As a preliminary, please consider the simple pattern

20 = 5*4 = 5 + 5 + 5 + 5

15 = 5*3 = 5 + 5 + 5

10 = 5*2 = 5 + 5

5 = 5*1 = 5

What does the next line in the pattern look like? How about

0 = 5*0 =

perhaps? I grant that it looks strange. But my point is that, since
we were removing a term of 5 on the right side each time, there are
now _no_ terms of 5 remaining there. It's an "empty sum", a sum of
no terms. (Of course, you shouldn't really write it as a blank
space. In doing that, I was exercising my pedagogical license!) Why
should an empty sum be 0? Well, 0 is the additive identity (that is,
x + 0 = x for all x). In a sense then, 0 is the additive
"background", what's always there, whether there are any other terms
or not. So after all the term of 5 have been removed, we're left
with just that background, the additive identity. Of course, having
used terms of 5 was not important to the example; any empty sum must
be 0 by the same reasoning, and so we often say "the empty sum",
rather than "an empty sum".

Now let's think about products instead of sums. Consider the pattern

81 = 34 = 3*3*3*3

27 = 33 = 3*3*3

9 = 32 = 3*3

3 = 31 = 3

1 = 30 = 1

I went ahead and wrote out the line involving 30. (You
already knew what it would be. Right?) We were removing a factor of
3 on the right side each time, and so, by the last line, there were
no factors of 3 remaining. We got an empty product, a product of no
factors. Now, since x*1 = x for all x, 1 is the multiplicative
identity, and so 1 is our multiplicative "background", what we can
always think of as being present in a product, whether there are any
other factors or not. Once all the factors of 3 were gone, only the
multiplicative background, 1, remained. But using 3 in our example
was unimportant of course. Any empty product must be the
multiplicative identity, 1, just as any empty sum must be the
additive identity, 0. Thus we normally speak of "the empty
product", rather than "an empty product".

So let's think about x0 in general. How many factors of x
does it have? Well, none, of course; the exponent tells us that it
has 0 factors of x. Since there are _no_ factors of x involved in
the product, our result should be _independent_ of x. And of course
that's exactly what we find from the reasoning in the previous
paragraph: x0 is the empty product, and must therefore be
1, regardless of x.

--- Digression about 0! ---

Have you ever heard of factorials? (I don't know if factorials are
encountered in middle school or not.) For example, 6!, read as "six
factorial", means 1*2*3*4*5*6, and so its value is 720. Generally,
for a positive integer N, we could write N! = 1*2*3*4*...*N. So
let's define N! as being the product of the first N positive
integers. Now at first glance, most people would be inclined to
think that the definition in the previous sentence would be
applicable only when N is a _positive_ integer. But that's not quite
true. Our definition still works when N = 0, and that's good because
it turns out that, in using factorials, we often need to deal with
0! (Before reading further, can you give the value of 0! and explain
why it must have that value?) If we use our definition of factorial,
we find that 0! should be the product of the first 0 positive
integers. Ah! It's the product of no factors, and thus it's the
empty product, and so it must be 1.

I included this digression because students often ask "Why is 0! =
1?" and teachers often reply simply "By definition." But of course
such an answer is ultimately unsatisfying because it doesn't tell
the students _why_ 0! is defined to be 1. My favorite explanation is
that in the paragraph above. So 0! and x0 are seen to be
1 for exactly the same reason: They're both the empty product.

--- End digression ---

Finally, I need to address the matter, raised by Alex, of 00. To deal with this quickly, I could merely repeat what I had said right before the digression: x0 is the empty product, and must therefore be 1, _regardless_ of x. Then, as a special case, we have 00 = 1.

I wish I could just stop with that and say "Case closed." But then you would wonder why Alex had said "However, most of the time 00 is left undefined."

Since I've already presented an argument presumably showing that 00 must be 1, perhaps I should also now, in fairness, present reasons for leaving 00 undefined. But I can't! I am aware of not a single compelling mathematical argument for leaving 00 undefined.

So then you're wondering: Why is 00 often left undefined, at least in lower level texts? Unfortuantely, to explain that gaffe would take us far beyond what's appropriate for a middle school audience. (If anyone's curious, I'd be willing to give my opinion about this matter in either the College Math or This and That part of CTK.)

I'll close with a quotation from _Concrete Mathematics_ by Ronald Graham, Donald Knuth, and Oren Patashnik (Addison-Wesley, 2nd ed., 1994) p. 162:

"Some textbooks leave the quantity 00 undefined... But this is a mistake. We must define x0 = 1, for all x..."

Regards,
David W. Cantrell


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
alexb
Charter Member
2270 posts
May-04-06, 09:58 AM (EST)
Click to EMail alexb Click to send private message to alexb Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
6. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #5
 
   >>>Please can anyone explain to me why, when any real number is
>>>raised to the power of zero, the result is 1.
>>
>>By definition, or you can say by common agreement.
>
>When someone asks "Why?", I've never been very fond of
>answers of that sort, although such answers are indeed
>often given. I'm not fond of them because, to me at least,
>they seem to evade the basic issue:
>_Why_ is it that we commonly agree to define something in a
>certain way?

Well, no one disagrees with you. As you have noticed, the claim about the fact of the definition has been followed by an explanation, however short.

I think it is a good practice to start with 1-2 sentences underlying the jist of the coming response, and then proceed with additional verbiage.

>>It's a convenience actually since then
>>
>>ab∑a-b = ab - b = 1.
>
>Yes, that's a reason for why we define it that way. But in
>my opinion, the "real" reason is much more compelling than

You mean an "additional" reason?

>I'm not at all sure that's done most of the time _by
>mathematicians_. But I regret to say that I agree that it is
>done most of the time in elementary (pre-graduate school level)
>texts.

... and any level Calculus book, of course.

>Therefore, I also briefly address the issue of 0^0 below.
>
>we can always think of as being present in a product,
>whether there are any other factors or not.

This is a delicate point. We are not exactly talking of the integers. Would you call x a factor in

x×1/x = 1.

(I understand what you wanted to say and accept that. The above is to underscore a possible ambiguity in your argument.)

>x0 is the empty product, and must
>therefore be 1, regardless of x.

The argument is nice, but by the same token, 0x = 0 regardless of x.

>Since I've already presented an argument presumably showing
>that 00 must be 1, perhaps I should also now, in
>fairness, present reasons for leaving 00
>undefined. But I can't! I am aware of not a single
>compelling mathematical argument for leaving 00
>undefined.

I do not believe that. To me, the ambiguity created by "0x = 0 for all x" is sufficiently compelling to have second thoughts.

>So then you're wondering: Why is 00 often left
>undefined, at least in lower level texts?

With a view to Calculus and for the same reason that 0/0 is left undefined: there are ways and ways to approach 0.

>Unfortuantely, to
>explain that gaffe would take us far beyond what's
>appropriate for a middle school audience.

This is why ... Is it not? I can't be 100% sure, but perhaps the sources chose to avoid giving an explanation that "would take the audience far beyond what's appropriate for a middle school audience."

>I'll close with a quotation from _Concrete Mathematics_ by
>Ronald Graham, Donald Knuth, and Oren Patashnik
>(Addison-Wesley, 2nd ed., 1994) p. 162:
>
>"Some textbooks leave the quantity 00
>undefined... But this is a mistake. We must define
>x0 = 1, for all x..."

With all due respect, I understand their argument and agree that in Discrete Mathematics it's rather a great convenience to have 00 = 0. But to say it's a mistake to have Calculus in mind, is a misteak. (See B. Cipra's or E. J. Barbeau's books.)


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
DWCantrell
guest
May-05-06, 08:20 AM (EST)
 
7. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #6
 
   >>>>Please can anyone explain to me why, when any real number is
>>>>raised to the power of zero, the result is 1.

>>>It's a convenience actually since then
>>>
>>>ab∑a-b = ab - b = 1.
>>
>>Yes, that's a reason for why we define it that way. But in
>>my opinion, the "real" reason is much more compelling than
>
>You mean an "additional" reason?

I must confess to being somewhat of a Platonist. From that viewpoint, I meant _the real reason_. :-)

Convenience can be a reason for doing certain things, no doubt. Given a choice of several things, their only differences being in matters of convenience, we would certainly choose the most convenient one. But if there are differences of a _fundamental_ nature between the alternatives, then convenience should not govern our choice.

Concerning leaving 00 undefined:
>>I'm not at all sure that's done most of the time _by
>>mathematicians_. But I regret to say that I agree that it is
>>done most of the time in elementary (pre-graduate school level)
>>texts.
>
>... and any level Calculus book, of course.

No. For example, just look in their sections on power series: x0 = 1, even when x = 0. (Perhaps you can find some texts which don't do that, but that is done in all the texts I've taught from.)

>>Therefore, I also briefly address the issue of 0^0 below.
>>
>>we can always think of as being present in a product,
>>whether there are any other factors or not.
>
>This is a delicate point. We are not exactly talking of the
>integers.

I'm not certain that I understand your point. Are you perhaps wishing to distinguish between the integer 0 and the real number 0 when used as exponents?

> Would you call x a factor in
>
>x◊1/x = 1.

Yes, the expression on the left does have a factor of x. Indeed, it has factors of x in both numerator and denominator. (Furthermore, I'll note that those factors of x can legitimately be "cancelled", giving 1 as the result, except when x = 0.)

>(I understand what you wanted to say and accept that. The
>above is to underscore a possible ambiguity in your
>argument.)

What is that possible ambiguity?

>>x0 is the empty product, and must
>>therefore be 1, regardless of x.
>
>The argument is nice, but by the same token, 0x =
>0 regardless of x.

I don't know what you mean by "the same token". 0x is not an empty product unless x happens to be 0. We should have

0x = 0 if x > 0, 1 if x = 0, and (assuming we want to stay in the real number system) undefined if x < 0.

>>Since I've already presented an argument presumably showing
>>that 00 must be 1, perhaps I should also now, in
>>fairness, present reasons for leaving 00
>>undefined. But I can't! I am aware of not a single
>>compelling mathematical argument for leaving 00
>>undefined.
>
>I do not believe that.

Well, it's true. Note the important word "compelling".

>To me, the ambiguity created by
>"0x = 0 for all x" is sufficiently compelling to
>have second thoughts.

I'd rather that you had second thoughts about 0x = 0 for negative x! ;-)

>>So then you're wondering: Why is 00 often left
>>undefined, at least in lower level texts?
>
>With a view to Calculus and for the same reason that 0/0 is
>left undefined: there are ways and ways to approach 0.

Approach? There is no "approaching" going on, at least not in what I've been talking about. I have been talking about 00, which is an _arithmetic_ expression. The base and the exponent are _constant_. (I cannot stress that point too strongly.) But I now see what is perhaps causing your consternation, Alex.

When we consider limits in Calculus, we have certain forms which are called indeterminate. For example, knowing merely that x and y both approach 0, we cannot determine the limit of xy. Depending on _how_ x and y approach 0, many different answers are possible. For this reason, this form of limit, in which base and exponent both approach 0, is called indeterminate. Now for better or worse -- and I think the latter -- this indeterminate limit form is often denoted simply as 00. But this shorthand can easily cause confusion. It _looks_ like a mere arithmetic expression, but it's not. It would be somewhat better, I think, if this indeterminate limit form were abbreviated as "00", in the hope that the quotation marks would provide a clue to the reader that we are not literally talking about 00.

In summary:
When we refer to the limit form "00", we are talking about a situation in which the base and exponent _approach_ 0. This form is rightly called indeterminate. But in contrast, in the arithmetic expression 00, the base and exponent are _fixed_. One should not confuse the arithmetic expression and the limit form!

>>Unfortuantely, to
>>explain that gaffe would take us far beyond what's
>>appropriate for a middle school audience.
>
>This is why ... Is it not? I can't be 100% sure, but perhaps
>the sources chose to avoid giving an explanation that "would
>take the audience far beyond what's appropriate for a middle
>school audience."

Yes, I suspect that confusion between the arithmetic expression and the limit form could well contribute to the problem.

>>I'll close with a quotation from _Concrete Mathematics_ by
>>Ronald Graham, Donald Knuth, and Oren Patashnik
>>(Addison-Wesley, 2nd ed., 1994) p. 162:
>>
>>"Some textbooks leave the quantity 00
>>undefined... But this is a mistake. We must define
>>x0 = 1, for all x..."
>
>With all due respect, I understand their argument and agree
>that in Discrete Mathematics it's rather a great convenience
>to have 00 = 0.

You intended to say 1.

>But to say it's a mistake to have Calculus in mind, is a misteak.

Of course, it's no mistake to have Calculus in mind. The mistake is to think that Calculus would keep us from defining 00 as it should be! The fact that "00" is an indeterminate limit form has no bearing on whether 00 should be defined or not.

>(See B. Cipra's or E. J. Barbeau's books.)

I'd be happy to look at any particular passages you'd care to mention, if you still think they're relevant.

Regards,
David W. Cantrell


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
alexb
Charter Member
2270 posts
May-05-06, 10:44 AM (EST)
Click to EMail alexb Click to send private message to alexb Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
9. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #7
 
   >>You mean an "additional" reason?
>
>I must confess to being somewhat of a Platonist. From that
>viewpoint, I meant _the real reason_. :-)

No doubt. I just would add an IMHO.

>>... and any level Calculus book, of course.
>
>No. For example, just look in their sections on power
>series: x0 = 1, even when x = 0. (Perhaps you can
>find some texts which don't do that, but that is done in all
>the texts I've taught from.)

It was a while that I last taught Calculus (or, for that matter, anything else). If the memory serves, they did universally use the shorthand Sakxk for the infinite sum a0 + a1x + ..., but I have no recollection of any instance where the proper point has been made or the matter of x0 = 1 at all taken up.

>
>>>Therefore, I also briefly address the issue of 0^0 below.
>>>
>>>we can always think of as being present in a product,
>>>whether there are any other factors or not.
>>
>>This is a delicate point. We are not exactly talking of the
>>integers.
>
>I'm not certain that I understand your point. Are you
>perhaps wishing to distinguish between the integer 0 and the
>real number 0 when used as exponents?

No, I just meant to point out that the terminology here became somewhat lax. With integers, there is no question about a factor being present in or absent from a product. It's not the case with real x's. You admit this in the next paragraph. Consider what you said previously:


    "So let's think about x0 in general. How many factors of x
    does it have? Well, none, of course; the exponent tells us that it
    has 0 factors of x."

In the context of real x, asking "how many factors" is different from having this question for integer x. Suggesting that along with x comes also 1/x is not altogether compelling because:


  1. there could be more factors, like x·y2·1/(xy)·...
  2. this brings up the simple conventional argument that xa - a = 1.

>> Would you call x a factor in
>>
>>x◊1/x = 1.
>
>Yes, the expression on the left does have a factor of x.
>Indeed, it has factors of x in both numerator and
>denominator. (Furthermore, I'll note that those factors of x
>can legitimately be "cancelled", giving 1 as the result,
>except when x = 0.)
>
>>(I understand what you wanted to say and accept that. The
>>above is to underscore a possible ambiguity in your
>>argument.)
>
>What is that possible ambiguity?

As above: too many factors may conceal a mutual cancellation of x and 1/x or just to bring up the basic xa - a = 1. Ambiguity may not be the right word. But "circular reasoning" may.

>>>x0 is the empty product, and must
>>>therefore be 1, regardless of x.
>>
>>The argument is nice, but by the same token, 0x =
>>0 regardless of x.
>
>I don't know what you mean by "the same token".
>0x is not an empty product unless x happens to be
>0. We should have

"Going to the extreme": having an empty product, admittedly a nice concept, is analogous to taking 0 to a "no power". For any (positive) power it's 0. Hence, it is also 0 for a no-power.

>0x = 0 if x > 0, 1 if x = 0, and (assuming we
>want to stay in the real number system) undefined if x < 0.
>
>>>Since I've already presented an argument presumably showing
>>>that 00 must be 1, perhaps I should also now, in
>>>fairness, present reasons for leaving 00
>>>undefined. But I can't! I am aware of not a single
>>>compelling mathematical argument for leaving 00
>>>undefined.
>>
>>I do not believe that.
>
>Well, it's true. Note the important word "compelling".
>
>>To me, the ambiguity created by
>>"0x = 0 for all x" is sufficiently compelling to
>>have second thoughts.
>
>I'd rather that you had second thoughts about 0x
>= 0 for negative x! ;-)

Always have them. I even dream twice a night. Monogamy is especially hard on me.

>>>So then you're wondering: Why is 00 often left
>>>undefined, at least in lower level texts?
>>
>>With a view to Calculus and for the same reason that 0/0 is
>>left undefined: there are ways and ways to approach 0.
>
>Approach? There is no "approaching" going on, at least not
>in what I've been talking about. I have been talking about
>00, which is an _arithmetic_ expression. The base
>and the exponent are _constant_. (I cannot stress that point
>too strongly.) But I now see what is perhaps causing your
>consternation, Alex.

No, no. It's much rather an amusement. I simply do not believe that there is always one best way or vene one _real_ explanation. As a platonist, I believe in a beauty of an argument on its own merits. I absolutely enjoyed your "empty sum" and "empty product" concepts. It's just I can envisage that for somebody this arumentation will be outlandish, let alone un _real_.

>When we consider limits in Calculus, we have certain forms
>which are called indeterminate ... we are not literally
>talking about 00.

We are not; somebody is.

>One should not confuse the
>arithmetic expression and the limit form!

They will, they will ... You'll yet be surprised.

>>>Unfortuantely, to
>>>explain that gaffe would take us far beyond what's
>>>appropriate for a middle school audience.
>>
>>This is why ... Is it not? I can't be 100% sure, but perhaps
>>the sources chose to avoid giving an explanation that "would
>>take the audience far beyond what's appropriate for a middle
>>school audience."
>
>Yes, I suspect that confusion between the arithmetic
>expression and the limit form could well contribute to the
>problem.

>>But to say it's a mistake to have Calculus in mind, is a misteak.
>
>Of course, it's no mistake to have Calculus in mind. The
>mistake is to think that Calculus would keep us from
>defining 00 as it should be!

Again, I see your point and enjoy your argument but I can't accept the value judgement concealed behind "... as it should be." Look how far we (the humanity, I mean) got (developing mathematics) without this point having been settled.

>>(See B. Cipra's or E. J. Barbeau's books.)
>
>I'd be happy to look at any particular passages you'd care
>to mention, if you still think they're relevant.

What's relevant here is an inordinate amount of ways the kids get confused in. The "empty sum" and "empty product", however natural they are to your (or mine) mind's organization are bound to confuse some. I can't substantiate my opinion in any way but I think that they may be enjoyable more than helpful. In other words, they provide an additional angle to what one has already accepted or they bring more confusion to one who is struggling anyway.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
DWCantrell
guest
May-16-06, 10:38 PM (EST)
 
10. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #9
 
   >>>... and any level Calculus book, of course.
>>
>>No. For example, just look in their sections on power
>>series: x0 = 1, even when x = 0. (Perhaps you can
>>find some texts which don't do that, but that is done in all
>>the texts I've taught from.)
>
>It was a while that I last taught Calculus (or, for that
>matter, anything else). If the memory serves, they did
>universally use the shorthand Sakxk for the
>infinite sum a0 + a1x + ..., but I
>have no recollection of any instance where the proper point
>has been made or the matter of x0 = 1 at all
>taken up.

Sorry for my delay in responding, Alex.

When talking about empty products, it's particularly nice to consider Taylor's series. The kth term involves

f(k)(a), k!, and (x - a)k.

When k happens to be 0, _all three_ of these quantities are empty "products". As mentioned earlier in this thread, the latter two (which are products, literally) are 1, the identity element for multiplication. But what about f(k)(a) when k happens to be 0? In other words, what must the 0th derivative of our function be? Well, instead of writing the kth derivative of f as f(k), it's nicer here to write it using the alternative notation

Dkf.

In this form, it's clear that the operator D must be applied k times. (For example, D2, the "product" of D and D, is an operator causing us to differentiate twice.) Then D0 is the empty "product" of the operator D. Therefore, it must be the _identity_ for operators, and that identity operator applied to our function f gives just f itself: D0f = f.

Of course, I suppose that most people's intuition tells them that, differentiating 0 times, the function f is unchanged. But I think it's also nice to see, via the empty product principle, that D0 must be the identity operator.

>>Of course, it's no mistake to have Calculus in mind. The
>>mistake is to think that Calculus would keep us from
>>defining 00 as it should be!
>
>Again, I see your point and enjoy your argument but I can't
>accept the value judgement concealed behind "... as it
>should be."

If it would make you any happier, feel free to replace "should" by "must", above and below.

Consider the statement "23 = 8 is as it should be." Do you really think that there is some unacceptable value judgment concealed therein? I don't. Similarly, I don't hesitate to say that 00 = 1 is as it should be.

>Look how far we (the humanity, I mean) got
>(developing mathematics) without this point having been
>settled.

Yes, I see your point. But...

This morning, while pulling up a vine in my garden, I got a thorn in my finger. The thorn didn't hurt much at all. I could have continued with my gardening, without any noticeable detriment, without ever having removed the thorn. But why not remove it at the first opportunity?

To me, having 00 undefined is just such a thorn. Sure, we could live with it and do well enough. But why not remove the thorn?

>>>(See B. Cipra's or E. J. Barbeau's books.)
>>
>>I'd be happy to look at any particular passages you'd care
>>to mention, if you still think they're relevant.
>
>What's relevant here is an inordinate amount of ways the
>kids get confused in. The "empty sum" and "empty product",
>however natural they are to your (or mine) mind's
>organization are bound to confuse some. I can't substantiate
>my opinion in any way but I think that they may be enjoyable
>more than helpful. In other words, they provide an
>additional angle to what one has already accepted or they
>bring more confusion to one who is struggling anyway.

You raise pedagogical concerns. Clearly, such concerns are valid. But of course we know that what is _pedagogically_ nice cannot dictate what is _mathematically_ correct. What is mathematically correct is determined first; only subsequently may we consider how that can best be taught.

But in fact, I consider having x0 = 1 for _all_ x to be not only a mathematical necessity, but also pedagogically easier to handle than leaving 00 undefined. After all, if we explain well why _any_ 0th power must be 1, then we are done. Period. (And then, much later, when the student is studying limits, he will be cautioned that the fact that the limit form called "00" is indeterminate has nothing to do with 00 = 1.) But if we were to have x0 = 1 for all nonzero x, leaving 00 undefined, we would have to explain to students not only why x0 should be 1 for all nonzero x, but also explain why 00 should be left undefined. I could not, in honesty, do the latter. As I said before, I know of no compelling mathematical reason for leaving 00 undefined. But if you know of any such reason, Alex (or anyone else), please give it!

Regards,
David Cantrell


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
alexb
Charter Member
2270 posts
May-17-06, 07:54 AM (EST)
Click to EMail alexb Click to send private message to alexb Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
11. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #10
 
   >When talking about empty products, it's particularly nice to
>consider Taylor's series. The kth term involves
>
>f(k)(a), k!, and (x - a)k.
>
>When k happens to be 0, _all three_ of these quantities are
>empty "products".

You are going to answer a question I did not ask. All I said was that I do not know of any Calculus book that took up the matter of 00 = 1.

>>>Of course, it's no mistake to have Calculus in mind. The
>>>mistake is to think that Calculus would keep us from
>>>defining 00 as it should be!

Who does?

>>Again, I see your point and enjoy your argument but I can't
>>accept the value judgement concealed behind "... as it
>>should be."
>
>If it would make you any happier,

This is besides the point. I am quite happy as it is. And my happiness or its degree is irrelevant to the discussion.

>Consider the statement "23 = 8 is as it should
>be." Do you really think that there is some unacceptable
>value judgment concealed therein? I don't.

I do not.

>Similarly,

???

>I don't hesitate to say that 00 = 1 is
>as it should be.

I've been reading with my 6 year old a small book "Why did not I say that?" on a matter of a suitable repartee under various circumstances.

The thing that just leaps out of my mouth is "Do you ever?" - Sorry for that. But seriously, if the above is not a value judgement, I do not know what is.

>To me, having 00 undefined is just such a thorn.
>Sure, we could live with it and do well enough. But why not
>remove the thorn?

By all means. Please go ahead.

>You raise pedagogical concerns. Clearly, such concerns are
>valid. But of course we know that what is _pedagogically_
>nice cannot dictate what is _mathematically_ correct.

We are not going to start a discussion on mathematical correctness, are we?

>What
>is mathematically correct is determined first; only
>subsequently may we consider how that can best be taught.
>
>But in fact, I consider having x0 = 1 for _all_ x
>to be not only a mathematical necessity, but also
>pedagogically easier to handle than leaving 00
>undefined. After all, if we explain well why _any_
>0th power must be 1

This you did explain really very well.

>, then we are done.

But if only life were that easy

>Period.

Ellipses.

>undefined. But if you know of any such reason, Alex (or
>anyone else), please give it!

There is none. Now what?

As I said, I liked your argument and the notion of an empty product. All you need now is a magic wand.

I wish you well,
Alex


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
DWCantrell
guest
May-18-06, 10:29 AM (EST)
 
12. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #11
 
   I apologize for any offense I may inadvertently have caused.

Many thanks, Alex, for the discussion.

Best wishes, always,
David


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
alexb
Charter Member
2270 posts
May-18-06, 10:33 AM (EST)
Click to EMail alexb Click to send private message to alexb Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
13. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #12
 
   >I apologize for any offense I may inadvertently have caused.

Was it anything I said?

If so, I am sorry.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
alexb
Charter Member
2270 posts
Nov-27-06, 02:46 PM (EST)
Click to EMail alexb Click to send private message to alexb Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
14. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #13
 
   I have just come across a resource page for the Mathpath organization (https://www.mathpath.org). In all likelihood this is an expression of John Conway's view:

https://www.mathpath.org/concepts/division.by.zero.htm


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Janine
guest
Jun-26-07, 08:34 PM (EST)
 
17. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #5
 
   The issue of 0^0 still intrigues me.

0^n = 0 for all n>0
0^n is undefined for n<0
But from your argument you state that 0^0 = 1.

So while f(x) = x^n is usually a continuous function, the results above imply that this is only true if x does not equal 0.

Is this a simple explanation as to why 0^0 is left undefined since a base of 0 breaks the rules of continuity anyway?

I am very hazy on my limits but it'seems strange to contemplate that lim n approaches 0 of 0^n = 1 when the nth root of 0 is 0.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
alexb
Charter Member
2270 posts
Jul-04-07, 01:27 AM (EST)
Click to EMail alexb Click to send private message to alexb Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
18. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #17
 
   As you surmise, there is no way to justify the definition 00 = 1 by means of continuity or limits. David does not claim this is possible.

In discrete mathematics, however, the definition offers formulational advantages and may, as David tried to show, be justified by analogy with other common usages.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
aravindh
guest
Dec-03-06, 11:55 PM (EST)
 
15. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #1
 
   y/y = 1 also y/y = y^1/y^1 = y^(1-1) = y^0

therefore y/y = y^0 = 1


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Mark Huber
guest
May-26-05, 07:38 PM (EST)
 
2. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #0
 
   >Please can anyone explain to me why, when any real number is
>raised to the power of zero, the result is 1.

As Alex noted, 0^0 is usually left undefined, but you are correct, a^0 = 1 for any real number a not equal to zero.

Alex gave the practical reason: it is that way so that the rule a^(b_1)*a^(b_2) = a^(b_1 + b_2) holds. But if you go deeper into the definition of exponentiation, it also holds.

Defining how to raise a real number to a nonzero integer is easy, and from there it is a short step to raising any real number to any nonzero rational number. But then there is the question, what is a^b where a is any positive real and b is any real number or zero?

There are two directions that you can take in defining exponents of this form, and both are commonly used. The first is for a real number b, consider any sequence of numbers b_1,b_2,... that converge to b. Then let
a^b := lim_{n goes to infinity} a^(b_n).
The only tricky part here is showing that this definition makes sense: that is, for *any* sequence that converges to b, that you get the same limit. In fact this is true: any sequence that converges to b will have the same limiting value of a^(b_n).

For the zero case then a^0 = lim_{n goes to infinity} a^(1/n) which is just 1.

The second method used to define exponentials first defines what e^x is for all real x as the sum of a convergent series:
e^x := 1 + x + x^2/2 + x^3/3! + ...
This function e^x can be shown to be increasing, so the inverse exists and the natural logarithm (written ln(x)) is this inverse. Now exponentials can be defined:
a^b := e^(b*ln(a))
No matter what a is, when b = 0, b*ln(a) = 0 and a^0 = e^0. But from the definition of e^x:
e^0 = 1 + 0 + 0^2/2 + 0^3/3! + ... = 1.
Hence a^0 = 1. The advantage of this definition of exponentiation over the first is that (while less intuitive) it extends in a natural way to deal with negative numbers raised to real exponents.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
guruganesh
guest
May-29-05, 07:46 AM (EST)
 
3. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #0
 
   let k=2^0
taking log on both the sides
log k=0.log2
log k=o
k=e^0
k=1
lly
u can prove for oters with exceptions like infinity^0 etc...


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
alexb
Charter Member
2270 posts
May-29-05, 07:49 AM (EST)
Click to EMail alexb Click to send private message to alexb Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
4. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #3
 
   >let k=2^0
>taking log on both the sides

"taking log on both sides" already assumes that 2^0 has been previously defined. Thus what follows can't be considered as a proof, but, at best, as a motivation for the definition.

>log k=0.log2
>log k=o
>k=e^0
>k=1
>lly
>u can prove for oters with exceptions like infinity^0 etc...


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Ryan
guest
Dec-16-06, 06:12 PM (EST)
 
16. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #0
 
   Consider the limit as n approaches infinite of x^(1/n). Once we get out far enough towards infinite it becomes x^0=1. What this says is that succesive square rooting of any number will get us close enough to 1. It is easy to demonstrate this numerically using a calculator.
The formal proof is very ugly.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Karen Kaul
guest
Jul-30-07, 07:38 AM (EST)
 
19. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #0
 
   It must be that way in order for the number system to be consistent. If you look at the pattern of numbers raised to different powers, going down to the power of zero, you will see. Example (each time you divide by 10, so you will get 1 when you divided 10 by 10)
10 to 5th power = 100000 (10x10x10x10x10)
10 to 4th power = 10000
10 to 3rd power = 1000
10 to 2nd power= 100
10 to 1st power = 10
10 to zero power = 1
likewise
10 to -1 power = 0.1

It works for any number
5 to 3rd power = 125
5 to 2nd power = 25 (125 divided by 5)
5 to 1st power = 5 (25 divided by 5)
5 to zero power = 1 (5 divided by 5)


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Chris Tolley
guest
Sep-30-07, 05:31 AM (EST)
 
20. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #0
 
   Consider any numeber x raised to a ppower of n. When x raised to n is divided by x riased to the same power n it is now equivalent to x raised to the power n-n, where n-n = 0, so the number x is now raised to 0. But x raised to n divided by the same number xraised to n is equal to 1 and that explains why a number raised to 0 equals 1.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
megamath
guest
Aug-25-08, 12:17 PM (EST)
 
21. "RE: Numbers raised to the power of 0"
In response to message #0
 
   x^-1 * x^1 = x^0 = 1/x * x = 1

QED :)


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

You may be curious to have a look at the old CTK Exchange archive.
Please do not post there.

Copyright © 1996-2018 Alexander Bogomolny

Search:
Keywords:

Google
Web CTK