# Maths help please!

Watch
Announcements

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

Hey,

Was doing some research when I encountered a definition on a^b which states that this is the number of sets of b elements which can be chosen from a set of a elements. So 2^1 = 2 because the number of sets of 1 element which can be chosen from a set of 2 elements is 2. But then if we think of 2^2, this is defined as the number of sets of 2 elements that can be chosen from a set of 2 elements. Surely this is just 1? But then 2^2 = 4 so I'm confused how the definition works in this case.

Sorry if I'm being really silly, below is the website I am using for reference.

https://brilliant.org/wiki/what-is-00/

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you so much!

Was doing some research when I encountered a definition on a^b which states that this is the number of sets of b elements which can be chosen from a set of a elements. So 2^1 = 2 because the number of sets of 1 element which can be chosen from a set of 2 elements is 2. But then if we think of 2^2, this is defined as the number of sets of 2 elements that can be chosen from a set of 2 elements. Surely this is just 1? But then 2^2 = 4 so I'm confused how the definition works in this case.

Sorry if I'm being really silly, below is the website I am using for reference.

https://brilliant.org/wiki/what-is-00/

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you so much!

0

reply

(Original post by

Think about the order you are choosing them

**qweqworiet**)Think about the order you are choosing them

So sorry if I'm being silly once again.

0

reply

Report

#5

(Original post by

Hey,

Was doing some research when I encountered a definition on a^b which states that this is the number of sets of b elements which can be chosen from a set of a elements. So 2^1 = 2 because the number of sets of 1 element which can be chosen from a set of 2 elements is 2. But then if we think of 2^2, this is defined as the number of sets of 2 elements that can be chosen from a set of 2 elements. Surely this is just 1? But then 2^2 = 4 so I'm confused how the definition works in this case.

Sorry if I'm being really silly, below is the website I am using for reference.

https://brilliant.org/wiki/what-is-00/

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you so much!

**maya_jai_singh**)Hey,

Was doing some research when I encountered a definition on a^b which states that this is the number of sets of b elements which can be chosen from a set of a elements. So 2^1 = 2 because the number of sets of 1 element which can be chosen from a set of 2 elements is 2. But then if we think of 2^2, this is defined as the number of sets of 2 elements that can be chosen from a set of 2 elements. Surely this is just 1? But then 2^2 = 4 so I'm confused how the definition works in this case.

Sorry if I'm being really silly, below is the website I am using for reference.

https://brilliant.org/wiki/what-is-00/

Any help would be greatly appreciated, thank you so much!

__Really__need to see the original material you've got that definition from, as the terminology you've used is not consistent with that definition which may be what's causing your issue. As you say, there is only one set of 2 elements where those elements are taken from a set of 2 elements.

Last edited by ghostwalker; 1 month ago

0

reply

Report

#6

(Original post by

Sorry if I'm being really silly, below is the website I am using for reference.

https://brilliant.org/wiki/what-is-00/

**maya_jai_singh**)Sorry if I'm being really silly, below is the website I am using for reference.

https://brilliant.org/wiki/what-is-00/

It would be better to think of m^n as the number of ordered n-tuples (an n-tuple is just an ordered set of n elements) with elements 1,2, ..., m. e.g. when m = 2, n = 2, you'd have (1, 1), (1, 2), (2, 1), (2, 2).

There's some somewhat more formal discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Over_sets

(Original post by

Can't access that website as you need to log in.

**ghostwalker**)Can't access that website as you need to log in.

__Really__need to see the original material you've got that definition from, as the terminology you've used is not consistent with that definition which may be what's causing your issue. As you say, there is only one set of 2 elements where those elements are taken from a set of 2 elements."0^0 represents the empty product (the number of sets of 0 elements that can be chosen from a set of 0 elements), which by definition is 1. This is also the same reason why anything else raised to the power of 0 is 1."

Which to my mind is unambiguously wrong (I can't really find a way of looking at it that isn't wrong). Edit: I guess you can weasel out of "wrong" by saying "chosen works here and there was no implication it worked for numbers larger than 0".

Last edited by DFranklin; 1 month ago

0

reply

Report

#7

(Original post by

The wording on the site (I didn't need to log in) is:

**DFranklin**)The wording on the site (I didn't need to log in) is:

0

reply

(Original post by

I'd be careful about what sites you trust. I think that definition is wrong.

It would be better to think of m^n as the number of ordered n-tuples (an n-tuple is just an ordered set of n elements) with elements 1,2, ..., m. e.g. when m = 2, n = 2, you'd have (1, 1), (1, 2), (2, 1), (2, 2).

There's some somewhat more formal discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Over_sets

The wording on the site (I didn't need to log in) is:

"0^0 represents the empty product (the number of sets of 0 elements that can be chosen from a set of 0 elements), which by definition is 1. This is also the same reason why anything else raised to the power of 0 is 1."

Which to my mind is unambiguously wrong (I can't really find a way of looking at it that isn't wrong). Edit: I guess you can weasel out of "wrong" by saying "chosen works here and there was no implication it worked for numbers larger than 0".

**DFranklin**)I'd be careful about what sites you trust. I think that definition is wrong.

It would be better to think of m^n as the number of ordered n-tuples (an n-tuple is just an ordered set of n elements) with elements 1,2, ..., m. e.g. when m = 2, n = 2, you'd have (1, 1), (1, 2), (2, 1), (2, 2).

There's some somewhat more formal discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Over_sets

The wording on the site (I didn't need to log in) is:

"0^0 represents the empty product (the number of sets of 0 elements that can be chosen from a set of 0 elements), which by definition is 1. This is also the same reason why anything else raised to the power of 0 is 1."

Which to my mind is unambiguously wrong (I can't really find a way of looking at it that isn't wrong). Edit: I guess you can weasel out of "wrong" by saying "chosen works here and there was no implication it worked for numbers larger than 0".

Thanks so much once again though for taking out your time, means a lot.

So if we had 0^0 this would be the number of ordered 0-tuples with elements 0 but then surely this is 0 as we cannot have 0 sets of 0 elements?

0

reply

(Original post by

So it is not talking about any a^b but only ^0

**qweqworiet**)So it is not talking about any a^b but only ^0

0

reply

**ghostwalker**)

Can't access that website as you need to log in.

__Really__need to see the original material you've got that definition from, as the terminology you've used is not consistent with that definition which may be what's causing your issue. As you say, there is only one set of 2 elements where those elements are taken from a set of 2 elements.

0

reply

Report

#12

(Original post by

This makes so much more sense to me! Thank you so much. So for 0^0, this would be defined as the number of ordered set of 0 elements with element 0? But if we have 0 elements in a set, we cannot have the element 0 in that set. So would 0^0 = 1 hold for the definition you have mentioned?

Thanks so much once again though for taking out your time, means a lot.

So if we had 0^0 this would be the number of ordered 0-tuples with elements 0 but then surely this is 0 as we cannot have 0 sets of 0 elements?

**maya_jai_singh**)This makes so much more sense to me! Thank you so much. So for 0^0, this would be defined as the number of ordered set of 0 elements with element 0? But if we have 0 elements in a set, we cannot have the element 0 in that set. So would 0^0 = 1 hold for the definition you have mentioned?

Thanks so much once again though for taking out your time, means a lot.

So if we had 0^0 this would be the number of ordered 0-tuples with elements 0 but then surely this is 0 as we cannot have 0 sets of 0 elements?

Edit: if you're wanting arguments for "why might we want 0^0 = 1", there's an argument similar to the binomial theorem,, but much more general. It is

**very**common to define a general polynomial p(x) in the form , which is (implicitly) saying that for

**all**choices of x including x = 0. (and so assumes 0^0 = 1).

Last edited by DFranklin; 1 month ago

0

reply

X

Page 1 of 1

Go to first unread

Skip to page:

### Quick Reply

Back

to top

to top