Never really was logical to me that one negative number multiplied by another negative number creates a positive number. ha ha. When I mentally create the math image, multiplying a deficit by another deficit, yields a much larger deficit or negative number. Just as that image when applied to positive numbers yields also a positive number. And yet both yield positive numbers. I don't see anything logical about it. I must be really dumb.
Its true of all human constructs, the rules are what we say they are. The only relevance to human constructs is to us, it has no actual effect on the universe around us...
Here's another strategy to try to approach the problem: 0.5=(0.0001x)^(0.0001y) and use a few different numbers to see a trend, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, etc. A quick look at a graphing calculator seems to reveal that, as x approaches infinity, the required ratio between x and y begins becoming a reasonable integer ratio. Since this would hold true of any value between 0 and 1 (not just 0.5), that would tend to indicate that 0^0 is not exactly defined (at least using this particular approach). Or it could be revealing something deeply fundamental about the mathematics, where what " 0^0 " is equivalent to is dependent on the rates at which the two zeros approach zero, as nonsensical as that might sound. This would be analogous to how to two different infinite sums that both add up to infinity can be divided to yield a finite number. This is purely unsubstantiated conjecture, but playing around with the graph I was beginning to see signs that 0^0 (where they both approach 0 at the same rate) was approaching an infinitesimally greater value than 0.5 , but all this could be due to tiny errors in the calculations of the graphing calculator program, so I don't want to draw any sure inferences.
You need to learn to think for yourself not trust others who are called "teachers". Meanwhile bye bye. All ad hom's go to the iggy list.
Well, by trusting my mathematics and other teachers I was able to land many lucrative jobs, so there is that. And I've noticed that people who "think for themselves" don't have very many interesting things to say because they are unable to learn from anybody else. And such think-for-yourselfers have the unmitigated gall to call anybody who disagrees with the idiots as if I had to agree with them because they think-for-themselves. I am delighted you are ignoring me and I urge any other think-for-themselvers to emulate your example. I am only interested in talking with people who are educated and willing to learn from others. By rights you ought to ignore everyone because they have nothing to teach you.
