You are Here: Home >< Maths

# 0^0 = 1 Watch

Announcements
1. It is implied in mathematics that;

Can anybody explain why this is, whats the proof behind this?
Doesn't the statement also imply that;

when n=0

??????????
2. LHS does not exist, as such. [I believe ]
3. So I see you divided by zero.

wait.

ohSHI-

Also I have read on other mathematical sources that 0^0 does equal 1 for the binomial theorem to work and other reasons. Can somebody explain this please.
5. Also here is why it is defined as 1:
http://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/10005.3-5.shtml

if this is the case, doesnt it imply that

?
6. Well it does say it is undefined.
7. But there are other mathematical sources that have defined it as '1', the question i'm asking is that doesnt that also imply

heres another:
http://home.att.net/~numericana/answ...bra.htm#zeroth
8. This is false for n=0, the symbol p/q (whether p,q be rational, real or complex) has no meaning for q=0
9. 0/0 = 0^0 = 1
but in the special case of divisions by zero, 0/0 or n/0 = ∞
10. From what I gather, it is very convenient to think "anything to the power of 0 is 1" - then you don't have to worry about special cases. But remember, it is technically an indeterminate form, so there are undoubtedly many limits of functions that will approach 0^0 at some certain point, but the value of the limit may be something different.

(That's my take on it anyway)

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.0.to.0.power.html
11. someone tried to do this but just made up a new number nullity which is the answer to the question. i would say that there is no solution i.e. 0^0 does not exist/is not a number.
12. (Original post by fusionskd)
It is implied in mathematics that;

Can anybody explain why this is, whats the proof behind this?
Doesn't the statement also imply that;

when n=0

??????????
0^0 is sometimes stated to be 1, as 0^0 is the number of maps from the empty set to itself, which is 1. Vut it is sometimes stated that 0^0 = 0
13. I was shown this at my Cambridge interview.

As , and

14. (Original post by datr)
I was shown this at my Cambridge interview.

As , and

Hmmmm interesting...
Can it not also be shown without the substitution?

hence...

but is equal to as is undefined...hmmmm

It would be like saying
...
15. (Original post by fusionskd)
Well, yes; the other method strikes me as 'more rigorous', though. It's obvious that x ln x tends to 0 as x tends to 0, but it's still not nice.
16. (Original post by fusionskd)
It is implied in mathematics that;

Can anybody explain why this is, whats the proof behind this?
Doesn't the statement also imply that;

when n=0

??????????
You've said

implies

then that makes sense, which of course it doesn't.

It could just be defined as so, in the same way that is defined to be 1. Its just definition...
17. The definition for actually works and is easy to understand via the proof.

We know that;

hence...

18. When it could be either. Or any number you like really, as you can't divide any number by zero, or can you take the log of zero. It's daft to think otherwise. Here's a clear illustration...

Or... any *******ing number you like! Also... if then . Assume you can do the same thing with zero. .

...? ? But is zero...

Thus NEVER DIVIDE BY ZERO. Also no logging! And no either. It's all just silly. Hence why mathematicians define it all as undefined.

And for ANYONE who thinks you too are also silly. Silly, silly silly.
19. (Original post by fusionskd)
Also here is why it is defined as 1:
http://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/10005.3-5.shtml

if this is the case, doesnt it imply that

?
if 1/0 is infinity and 0/0 is identical to 0(1/0) then this is the same as 0 multiplied by infinity, which is 0 i guess... i just realised. this is completely irrelivent
if 1/0 is infinity and 0/0 is identical to 0(1/0) then this is the same as 0 multiplied by infinity, which is 0 i guess... i just realised. this is completely irrelivent
And wrong.

1/0 has no meaning, regardless of whether you follow that up by multiplying by 0 too. The 0s don't cancel because "1/0" is meaningless. It's like "1/+" or "1/tree". Division is not defined under those circumstances.

On the other hand, fractions can approach a limit as their numerators and denominators approach zero (depending on 'how fast' they're going to zero and their relative sizes).

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: October 21, 2007
Today on TSR

### Things NOT to do at uni

Have you done any of these?

### How much revision have yr12s done?

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.