0.99999... = 1

[MattW]

Well I just tried in the windows calculator on the scientific calculator part, and using the x^y function in it, I used 0 ^ 0 and got 1.

So Microsoft > Casio?

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

So Microsoft > Casio?

Looks like.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

My Casio gives a Math error too...:S

 

[usy]

ahh!

I have a T.I 84 which is apparently a graphical calculators mostly used by smart people, like me. It’s a different story that I don’t know how to conduct the formulas on it.

 

[shravi]

ahh!

I have a T.I 84 which is apparently a graphical calculators mostly used by smart people, like me. It’s a different story that I don’t know how to conduct the formulas on it.

Lol, Usy, I think everyone has that. Mine's yellow though.

 

[MattW]

The TI 84 gives a Domain error rather than a math error.

 

[Kshitiz_Indian]

Well I tried with a casio one too and it gave a math error. Looks like these things are more stupid than MS!

 

[svijay]

Nothing wrong with Casio. This is the sort of question where Calvin's defence applies. See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Zero_to_the_zero_power

 

[Kshitiz_Indian]

Well this is pretty obvious. I've always been taught of the definitions of an exponent as the number of times the number is multiplied with one. For example, at 2^2, 2 is multiplied twice with one, giving 1 x 2 x 2 = 4. Hence that is why anything ^ 0 is 1, because then that number is multiplied 0 times with 1, or not at all multiplied in other words. I don't see why 0^0 can't be one because till the time we do not actually multiply or do something with 0 its just any other number, and hence 0^0 represents 0 being multiplied 0 times with 1, and the answer being 1.

 

[svijay]

Problem is, 0/0 = 0^1/0^1 = 0^(1-1)=0^0, so if you define 0^0 as 1, you are pretty much defining 0/0 as 1. Not everyone is comfortable with that.

 

[usy]

If 1 = 0 then 2 = 1

 

[zimrahil]

Well this is pretty obvious. I've always been taught of the definitions of an exponent as the number of times the number is multiplied with one. For example, at 2^2, 2 is multiplied twice with one, giving 1 x 2 x 2 = 4.

I am no mathematician, but who decided that rule, that 2X2, is infact 2x2x1?

Makes no sense to me, its as though it's been added in to prove other theories or something :confused:

 

[Kshitiz_Indian]

I am no mathematician, but who decided that rule, that 2X2, is infact 2x2x1?

Makes no sense to me, its as though it's been added in to prove other theories or something :confused:

I don't know, but I've always been taught that way, it might be wrong but it makes total sense to me. :confused:

 

[Sureshot]

Interesting method of being taught multiplication, I presume this is an Indian school?

You don't need the other one. Saying you have one lot of two, to times by two is unnecessary. If you have two lots of two, to multiply by two. You simplify 2x2x2 to 4x2

It's over complicating things. You don't need to with basic maths.

 

[Deleted member 9102]

Edit: Chris Gayle