Ooops, private mail gone pubic, blush....
At 01:46 PM 2/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
> Hi Ron,
>
> Check this out, I ran into a quick and dirty
> explanation of why 0^0 = 1 from a math whiz:
>
>"In a similar manner I used to believe 0^0 was undefined. I mean if there
>is disagreement over it's value, shouldn't it be undefined? Again by
>reading the axiomatic development of set theory, I now believe that 0^0
>should be 1, because there is indeed 1 function from the empty set to the
>empty set, namely the empty function."
>
> Strange, so I guess the number 1 is then a measure
> of the number of functions that occur. ?
>
> BTW, saw and gave a quick initial read of your
> Article 23 reply, I hope your right! but will
> see if I can sustain my stated reading. A law
> is only as good as whatever can be logically
> read into it, well, obviously.
>