Exploring the Undefined: Why is 0/0 Undefined and Why Does 0^0 = 1?

  • Thread starter ArmoSkater87
  • Start date
IN THAT WAY. 1/0 and 0/0 are undefined because they are not defined IN THAT WAY. 0/0=0 because it is defined IN THAT WAY.I could make a different mathematical system where 0/0 is defined, but it would have to be fundamentally different. It would also have to be completely consistent. It would also have to be useful and have the properties that we want of it. These systems are called abstract algebra, and they are interesting. They use groups, rings, and fields to analyze algebraic structures. There is a lot of cool stuff in there, and it is a lot of fun. But it is not the same as
  • #36
I think the simplest explanation for 0/0 being undefined is:

X*0=0 for all x

If 1*0=0, and 2*0=0, and 3*0=0, and 1,000,000*0=0,

Then which value of x does 0/0 belong to? If all the above are true, then

0/0=1, 0/0=2, 0/0=3, 0/0=1,000,000...(etc.) or any other number. But if THAT were true, then 1=2=3=1,000,000, etc. because of the transitive property. But this would be contradictory, therefore 0/0 must undefined.

--Mike from Shreveport

P.S. the answer to 0^0 depends on context and how it is interpreted, but my HP 50G (the finest calculator made) gives the answer 1. It can also be interpreted as undefined, but in the cases where it is, if epsilon (the very smallest possible number) is added to it, the answer becomes 1.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #37
ibcnunabit said:
P.S. the answer to 0^0 depends on context and how it is interpreted, but my HP 50G (the finest calculator made) gives the answer 1. It can also be interpreted as undefined, but in the cases where it is, if epsilon (the very smallest possible number) is added to it, the answer becomes 1.

If epsilon is added to which 0? If epsilon is added to the base, the answer becomes 1, if added to the exponent the answer becomes 0, if added to both, the answer becomes [tex]\epsilon^\epsilon[/tex], which is neither.
Also, in the system of real numbers, there isn't really a definitive "the very smallest possible number", since that number divided by 2 is also a real number and is strictly less than the original number (assuming this number is positive) unless that number is 0.
 
  • #38
0! = 1 because 3! = 3*2! and 2! = 2 * 1! and 1! = 1 * 0!
so 0! must be 1
 
  • #39
0!= 1 because mathematicians defined it as such to make calculations involving it easier. Thats what I read at least.
 
  • #40
0! is defined to be one because no other value makes sense and because this particular value does make sense from several different perspectives. Here are two; there are others.
  • The recursive definition of n! is that (n+1)! = (n+1)*n!, starting with 1!=1. Using this recursive definition in reverse, (n-1)! = n!/n. Setting n=1 and using 1!=1 yields 0!=1.
  • The extension of the factorial to the reals (and the complex numbers as well) is the gamma function. For all positive integers, n!=Γ(n+1). Γ(1)=1, so in this sense too it makes sense to say 0!=1.

Compare this with the problem of defining 0/0 and 0^0. Halls addressed this issue five years ago in this very thread:
HallsofIvy said:
By the way, we often say that terms such as 0/0 or 00 are "undetermined" rather than "undefined" because the problem is not that there is no way to define it but, rather, too many ways.
 
  • #41
D H said:
I agree with Hurkyl. It is better to say 0^0 is undefined. Why undefined? First and foremost, because saying that 0^0 is one leads to contradictions, just as defining 0/0 as 1, or any other number, leads to contradictions.

Secondly, look at it in terms of limits. For any non-zero number a and positive real ε, there exists a neighborhood of a such that ||az-1||<ε for all z in that neighborhood. In other words, saying a0=1 is consistent with the concept of limits. This isn't true for 00. Consider the function f(x,y)=xy where x is a positive real number and y is real. This function takes on all real values in any half-neighborhood of 0 (x>0, x2+y22). Extending to complex numbers, uv takes on all complex numbers in the neighborhood of 0. The limit of uv as u,v approach zero does not exist.Defining 0^0 as one is an abuse of notation -- but a very convenient abuse of notation.
Just because 0^x isn't continuous do not mean that it can't have a defined value.

0^0=1 is true in every case were you are not evaluating its surroundings, and in its surroundings then the value at 0^0 doesn't matter any way since you aren't evaluating its value at the point.
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
549
Replies
66
Views
5K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
55
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
585
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Back
Top