Calling All Math Folk
Calling All Math Folk
I know there are some folks here who read math Theory (if not just for the Greek).
So help me out...
Why is X raised to the 0 power = 1 and not 0 ?
So help me out...
Why is X raised to the 0 power = 1 and not 0 ?

 Textkit Fan
 Posts: 331
 Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
 Location: California
Re: Calling All Math Folk
Geoff wrote:Why is X raised to the 0 power = 1 and not 0 ?
Well, you know that fractional exponents are roots. So x^(1/2) (that is, x raised to the power of one half) is the square root of x, and x^(1/3) is the cubed root. So:
16^(1/2) = 4
16^(1/3) = 2.519842
16^(1/4) = 2
16^(1/5) = 1.741101
16^(1/6) = 1.587401
16^(1/10) = 1.319508
16^(1/15) = 1.203025
16^(1/25) = 1.117287
As the exponent gets smaller and smaller (closer to 0), the value of the expression approaches 1.
This makes intuitive sense. If the number y multipled by itself 25 times equals 16:
16^(1/25) = y > y^25 = 16
then it is clear that y must be at least a little larger than one. The same is also true for all numbers z larger than 25.
16^(1/z) = y > y^z = 16
As z increases into infinity, the exponent 1/z approaches 0, and the root y approaches 1.
So it makes sense to define 16^0 = 1.
You also know that negative exponents are the reciprocals, in other words, x^(y) = 1/(x^y)
16^(1) = 1/16 = 0.0625
16^(2) = 1/16^2 = 0.003906
16^(3) = 1/16^3 = 0.000244
16^(4) = 1/16^4 = 0.000015
So as the exponent becomes more negative, the value of x^y approaches zero.
But as the exponent approaches zero from the negative direction, the value of x^y approaches one:
16^(1/2) = 0.25
16^(1/3) = 0.396850
16^(1/4) = 0.5
16^(1/5) = 0.574349
16^(1/6) = 0.629961
16^(1/10) = 0.757858
16^(1/15) = 0.831238
16^(1/25) = 0.895025
And that's another good reason to define 16^0 = 1.

 Textkit Neophyte
 Posts: 78
 Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:00 am
 Location: San Antonio, TX, USA
 Contact:
can I call on you all too? what on earth do you do with 0^0? I mean 1 to the power of zero is certainly 1, but zero to the power of zero? My calculator tells me: domain error. lol, I need to know though, is it 1 too? I mean I could say that zero is like just getting very very close to 0, but I'm not too sure. I have a function and I have to know if it equals zero or not and it contains 0^0, and if that is 1 then the function in some cases makes more sense in others in makes not sense at all if it does equal 1. I'm confused .
phpbb

 Textkit Fan
 Posts: 331
 Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
 Location: California
Have a look at this explanation:
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.to.0.power.html
If you are thinking in terms of limits, then this describes the problem:
http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.to.0.power.html
If you are thinking in terms of limits, then this describes the problem:
They also mention this: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.
I will have to search my cellar for the older copies of Schlomilch's Zeitschrift. Ha ha.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.

 Textkit Neophyte
 Posts: 81
 Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 1:13 am
 Location: Los Angeles, California
 Contact:
Sounds like a calculus limit problem with indeterminate forms. You use logarithms to solve the 0^0 ones.I have a function and I have to know if it equals zero or not and it contains 0^0, and if that is 1 then the function in some cases makes more sense in others in makes not sense at all if it does equal 1.
This page has some info about 0^0.
EDIT:
Democritus beat me to the explanation.
BTW, Episcopus, your explanation is the same as mine except with numbers instead of variables.
Yeah sorry I'm just seriously ignorant when it comes to maths. Here at school the standard of people's maths is shockingly high! They seem to understand all this x d y √(x+z)√10^3^ with shocking ease; but you move on to any language work, english or especially other languages, and they are shockingly terrible. Shocking is an understatement. At x d y √(x+z)√10^3^ sincostan3x/^[2dfgsdfgs(bx^7)]/2a I tend to lean back on my chair stare at a wall and then a girl and stare at the board again and laugh. I suppose I can't fathom how this would be of any use in real life. You're better off doing weights.
phpbb
 FerrariusVerborum
 Textkit Neophyte
 Posts: 15
 Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:29 am
 Location: Yuba City, CA
I just love how the math controversy 'raged.' It makes me wish math professors actually got into fistfights over this stuff.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.
Euler and Newton, duking it out. Beautiful.
FV
True, a number only has a value if all the limits used to evaluate it give the same result.ThomasGR wrote:Very well so far, 0^0=1, but what happened with 0^x?
I mean 0^1=0, 0^2=0, etc.
and when we get 0^0, than suddenly we have a value 1?
For 0^0 we have:
0^x as x>0 = 0
and
x^0 as x>0 = 1
Therefore 0^0 has no true value.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, but in these two cases it doesn't matter whether 0 is approached from above or bellow. (I presume that's what you're talking about.)ThomasGR wrote:Does it go also for negative numbers?
Maths has a million uses.Episcopus wrote: I suppose I can't fathom how this would be of any use in real life. You're better off doing weights.
phpbb
 classicalclarinet
 Textkit Enthusiast
 Posts: 400
 Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:27 am
 Location: Anc, AK, USA
Your proof is quite good, it's just wrong, that's all.Emma_85 wrote:I think his proof is quite a good one actually, Episcopus. And now I know more about 0^0 than my maths teacher .
Teachers, *pech* my primary school teachers used to tell me that a/0=0. I tried arguing with them, but that never works. Teachers know everything.
Even more so, if that's possible.classicalclarinet wrote:just like Latin
phpbb
I think there is also a problem with negative numbers.Eureka wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by this, but in these two cases it doesn't matter whether 0 is approached from above or bellow. (I presume that's what you're talking about.)
4*0^(4)
=
4/(0^4)
4/(0)
=
0?
Maybe your teacher was correct, after all?Teachers, *pech* my primary school teachers used to tell me that a/0=0. I tried arguing with them, but that never works. Teachers know everything. :Rolling Eyes: :Smile:
No wonder that number 0 was adopted with such difficulty! It does nothing but create problems!
hmmmmmm… 0^(4):ThomasGR wrote:I think there is also a problem with negative numbers.
4*0^(4)
=
4/(0^4)
4/(0)
=
0?
x^(4) as x>0 = infinity
0^x as x>4 = 0
Yep, we have no solution.
Yes, I’m sure they were basing their comments on the concept of multiple limits. The scary thing is, you made me realise that they were partially correct. (I’m going to have to rethink my life now.)ThomasGR wrote:Maybe your teacher was correct, after all?
…Still, for most purposes, a/0=infinity.
phpbb

 Textkit Fan
 Posts: 331
 Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
 Location: California
I think you are right, and to put it another way, 4*0^(4) is undefined, because 4/0 is undefined.ThomasGR wrote:I think there is also a problem with negative numbers.
I think the problem is that the expression "0^x as x>4" is itself invalid, because when x is near 4 it's negative, and that means we have zero in the denominator. In other words, 0^x is undefined, for all x<0.Eureka wrote: hmmmmmm… 0^(4):
x^(4) as x>0 = infinity
0^x as x>4 = 0
Maybe what you meant to say was, as b approaches zero, the expression a/b increases to infinity. Infinity is not a number, and the expression a/0 is not a valid expression. So we can't say that a/0=infinity. Both sides of this equation are not valid.Eureka wrote:…Still, for most purposes, a/0=infinity.
Yes, I know infinity is not a number, but I wrote “=infinity” rather than “>infinity” for simplicity.Democritus wrote:Maybe what you meant to say was, as b approaches zero, the expression a/b increases to infinity.
I’ve consulted my old notes. If you want to evaluate a^b at a=0, b=4:Democritus wrote:I think the problem is that the expression "0^x as x>4" is itself invalid, because when x is near 4 it's negative, and that means we have zero in the denominator. In other words, 0^x is undefined, for all x<0.Eureka wrote: hmmmmmm… 0^(4):
x^(4) as x>0 = infinity
0^x as x>4 = 0
first set b=4
so, a^b = a^4
evaluate the limit as a>0:
a^4>infinity
then set a=0
so, a^b=0^b=0
evaluate the limit as b>4
0=0 regardless of the value of b
Because the methods do not agree, we have no solution. Both 0/x=0 and 0/x>infinty are slightly correct, but technically incorrect.
phpbb