>>37
>>38 is a Fag. I have no idea where R came from and it suggested nothing to imply x^0 = 1 when x isn't 0. x^0=? is a mathematical model and ? means what do you have to multiply by itself infinite times in order to get x.
If you want to find what you have to multply by itself 3 time to get x you do x^(1/3), if you want to find what you have to multiply by itself 800 times you do x^(1/800). As you might guess anything divided by infinity is 0, therefore...
x^0=x^(1/infinity)
of course there are certain rules which determine what happens when you multply something by infinity and it revolves around -1, 0 and 1.
infinity*x=f(x)
-1<x<-1, x<0, f(x) = infinity and -infinity
x=-1, f(x) = -1 and 1
x=0, f(x) = 0
1<x<1, 0<x, f(x) = infinity
x=1, f(x) = 1
Seeing as 0 is not a real number, there can be no real answer to x^0, unless x is also not a real number. Yes, everyone in the entire world is wrong except me. However everyone in the world is right about 0^0 = 0
0^0 = 0 because you can multiply 0 infinite times and you still end up with 0
infinity^0 > 1
1 < (infinity and -infinity)^0 < -1
-1^0 doesn't exist like other rooted negative numbers (1/infinity, remember?)
1^0 = 1, 1^anything = 1 of course