The google calculator say that $0^0=1$. I'm confused. It's well-known $0^0$ is undefined.
1330
Could someone provide me with a good explanation of why $0^0=1$?  My train of thought:  $x&gt;0$  $0^x=0^{x-0}=0^x/0^0$, so  $0^0=0^x/0^x=\,?$  Possible answers:   $0^0\cdot0^x=1\cdot0^0$, so $0^0=1$ $0^0=0^x/0^x=0/0$, which is undefined   PS. I've read the  on mathforum.org, but it isn't clear to me.
89595
How many $0's$ are in the end of:  $$1^1 \cdot 2^2 \cdot 3^3 \cdot 4^4.... 99^{99}$$  The answer is supposed to be $1100$ but I have absolutely NO clue how to get there.  Any advice?
110279
If integers $a$ and $b$ are not both zero, then $\gcd(a,b)=\gcd(a-b,b)$   Assume either $a=0$ or $b=0$. If $a=0$, then $\gcd(a,b)=\gcd(0,b)=b$ and $\gcd(a-b,b)=\gcd(-b,b)=-b$, so $\gcd(a,b)\neq\gcd(a-b,b)$.  If $b=0$, then $\gcd(a,b)=\gcd(a,0)=0$ and $\gcd(-b,b)=\gcd(a,0)=0$.  So, what can I say? Can you help? Can you check my proof-trying?
67883
Given a logarithm is true, if and only if, $y = \log_b{x}$ and $b^y = x$ (and $x$ and $b$ are positive, and $b$ is not equal to $1$), are true, why aren't logarithms defined for negative numbers?  Why can't $b$ be negative? Take $(-2)^3 = -8$ for example. Turning that into a logarithm, we get $3 = \log_{(-2)}{(-8)}$ which is an invalid equation as $b$ and $x$ are not positive! Why is this?
45167
My question is whether $x/x$ is always equal to $1$. I am mostly intersted in real numbers and particularly wonder whether $x/x$ is defined at $x=0$.  On one hand the division should simplify to $1$, on the other hand you should not be allowed to divide by zero.   I have been trying to find whether the simplification 'goes first' or whether the division causes trouble first, but it has proven impossible for me to find usefull search terms.     Note that this question arose after reading  and its first comment.
106527
I believe I see that $a_n = 2^n(a_0+1) - 1$ but am somewhat uncertain where to proceed afterwards. I am a complete beginner at number theory and would appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction--surely there is some obvious argument I am missing.
41522
(This was asked due to the comments and downvotes on this  answer. I am not that good at maths, so was wondering if I had made any basic mistakes)  Ignoring limits, I would like to know if this is a valid explanation for why $\frac00$ is undefined:     $x = \frac00$    $x \cdot 0 = 0$        Hence There are an infinite number of values for $x$ as anything multiplied by $0$ is $0$.   However, it seems to have got comments, with two general themes.  Once is that you lose the values of $x$ by multiplying by $0$.  The other is that the last line is:      $x \cdot 0 = \frac00 \cdot 0$   as it involves a division by $0$.  Is there any merit to either argument? More to the point, are there any major flaws in my explanation and is there a better way of showing why $\frac00$ is undefined?
79557
I'm having a little argument with my friend. He says that "$a + 0i$" is, in every way, absolutely equal to "$a$" (e.g.: $2 + 0i = 2$).  I say this is practically the case, so in every calculation you just assume that "$a + 0i$" is equal to the real number "$a$" and you always get the right results (this might not even be true, but I am no expert and as far as I can see this is the case). But then again, I believe that just cutting away "$+ 0i$" makes this number is not the same kind of number anymore, it's changed its structure and is not totally equivalent anymore. This is where he says I am absolutely wrong.  So, is it mathematically (strictly speaking!) perfectly fine to say that every complex number with an imaginary part of $0$ is just a real number? Or does this change the mathematical structure so much that it cannot be mathematically-valid but just something that happens to work (which is what I believe)?  I must say that I believe a complex number is one entity, whilst he believes that it is just a conglomerate of other entitites. So, as one said here, "$(a + bi) - bi = a$", I believe is barely a good argument. But then again: is it correct to view $a + bi$ as a single entity (like "$5$" or "$2$", just consisting of multiple symbols)? I'm (as a non-mathematician) not sure there either.
79985
I have tried $\gcd(0,8)$ in a lot of online  gcd (or hcf) calculators, but some say $\gcd(0,8)=0$, some other gives $\gcd(0,8)=8$ and some others give $\gcd(0,8)=1$. So really which one of these is correct and why there are different conventions?
68583
Where $i$ is the square root of negative one.  And is there a generalization of the $n$th root of $i$? Also how would this look graphically on the real number axis? Thanks
57811
Possible Duplicate:          What will be the answer if zero$(0)$ divided by zero$(0)$ Why It is un answerable?   $$\frac 00=\space ?$$ Thanks in Advance, Vicky
4432
Does $x^{y^z}$ equal $x^{(y^z)}$? If so, why?   Why not simply apply the order of the operation from left to right? Meaning $x^{y^z}$ equals $(x^y)^z$?  I always get confused with this and I don't understand the underlying rule. Any help would be appreciated!
116259
$|x|=\sqrt{x^2}$ as  shows. But, as $(x^2)^\frac12=x$, I can't understand where am I wrong interpreting Square-root.
113604
I was messing around with my TI-84 Plus Silver Edition calculator and discovered that it will actually give me values when taking the factorial of any number $n/2$ where $n$ is any integer greater than $-2$. Why does this happen? I thought factorials were only defined for positive integers and $0$, so what is my calculator doing to get the answer $3.32335097$ when I enter $2.5!$? Is there actually a definition of $2.5!$ or is my calculator just being weird? How is the factorial function implemented?  I understand the binary implications of $2.5$, so that could possibly have something to do with it. I get a domain error when trying to take the factorial of $-1, 2.3, e$, and any number that is not of the form $n/2$ where $n$ is any integer greater than $-2$.
64115
Are $\log_1 1$ and $\log_0 0$ indeterminate forms?  Whenever I ask someone about these indeterminate forms, they deny by saying either $\log$ is neither defined at base $0$ nor at base $1$, or they say $\log$ is a function so these must not be included in fundamental indeterminates.  But, we know division by zero is not defined, yet $0/0$ is indeterminate; and many others. And, actually, $\log$ is more a binary-operator that is the inverse operation of power/exponent operator.
2868
In class, we were simply given that this limit is undefined since along the paths $y=\pm x$, the function is undefined.  Am I right to think that this should be the case for any function, where the denominator is $x^2-y^2$, regardless of what the numerator is?  Just wanted to see if this is a quick way to identify limits of this form.  Thanks for the discussion and help!
72872
Is the fraction  $$\frac{1}{\frac{1}{0}}$$  undefined?   I know that division by zero is usually prohibited, but since dividing a number by a fraction yields the same result as multiplying the number by the fraction's reciprocal, you could argue that  $$\frac{1}{\frac{1}{0}} = (1)\left(\frac{0}{1}\right) = 0$$  Is that manipulation permissible in this case? Why or why not?