[quote]huwwaters wrote:
I did read the rest of the thread and do recognise what you say that science isn’t absolute, it is just a method of finding a model which best describes something that happens using pre-defined concepts (our case - decimal, Newtonian calculus etc.). That model can change if a better method is found, which is the whole basis of peer review, scientific reports etc.
I wrote the above for those who weren’t fortunate enough to go to college. I didn’t assume everyone here had a good understanding of maths but could have a lot of interest in the subject. I think it’s easy enough to follow something like anything multiplied by a zero is zero etc. rather than bringing logs, exponents or other concepts which are usually reserved for university mathematics students.
My little thing simply showed that you couldn’t get a clear answer for 0^0 and was therefore undetermined. Following that you could use other theory to try an obtain a value or start making assumptions like equating it to 1.
I’ll stop now before more people become unnecessarily angry.[/quote]
First, I’m not the guy who said anything about science and models. That stuff was irrelevant to the problem of 0^0. Second, I actually was the guy, who in another response to a post where someone tried to use similar reasoning to yours, pointed out that such reasoning is completely irrelevant to the problem of 0^0. (Ironic, no?) As you and all the other people who have tried to use middle school algebra have seen, it doesn’t help. I think those “unfortunate” souls who didn’t get to go to college could understand the basic point of my previous post, which was that contra what they tell you about the exponential function in middle school, there isn’t some ONE absolute definition of the function and that just the right clever manipulations will get you the answer. Any given mathematical context will dictate which definition of the function is appropriate, and hence what 0^0 actually is. Sometimes 0^0=1, sometimes 0^0 has no answer.
To attempt to use simple middle school algebraic reasoning is to completely miss the point and only confuses the issues even more.
Logger-rithms = lumberjacks who like music
0^0 is an indeterminate form. Learn to love 'em.
[quote]JLu wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
Liv92 wrote:
You guys are tools, just saying…
Hey, I do find math interesting. I don’t understand how this would make me a tool.
stokedporcupine8, thank you for the information.
I think he meant we’re tools for kissing Debra’s ass 
If not though, it’s his loss and your gain. There is a wonderful and rich conceptual world to mathematics. You only get the tiniest taste of it from highschool algebra and a normal calculus series.
I did just finish AP Calc BC, so I get to do Calc 3/Diff Eq now as a Junior. Luckily, I have always found solving math equations and just doing Calculus quite entertaining.
Does AP calc allow you to skip certain courses? Such as first/some second year courses? If so I would suggest you don’t, unless you KNOW you can do the first year material blindfolded. I have people in my class, some of which have done IB and some who’ve done AP and a good deal of them failed our first year calc midterm (our final is in a few weeks, we’ll see what happens then). Maybe AP calc aligns better with the American university courses so I don’t really know.[/quote]
Well, I skipped most of the middle school courses, but I did everything from Algebra 1 to AP Calc BC without skipping any courses. I do know quite a few people who got into AP Calc but didn’t know simpler math. Fortunately, I got a 5 on the test, so I must be doing something right.
[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
That’s cool. I wish that I had already been at that point when I was a highschool junior. I didn’t even start calculus until I was in college. You will probably have to wait until you get to college, but at some point there will be some major conceptual shifts in your math classes. Your math classes will go from being centered around solving equations to proofs, you’ll deal more with set theory and overall will take a more structural approach to things.
Hopefully if you have good teachers they will prepare you for this sort of thing, and not just have taught you how to mindless crank out derivatives.
In any case, I’m not quite sure what you’ll actually be doing in your Calc 3/Diff Eq class, but I found multivariable and vector calculus much more fun then the single variable stuff they teach you in calc 1 and 2. As for diff Eq, I think it’s slow going and boring at first, but by they time you get to partials it’s more fun. [/quote]
My teacher was formerly a Rocket Scientist, so he is pretty good at teaching calculus. Vectors and mutlivariable does sound pretty interesting. Should help with the physics course I am taking as well.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
By the way, to the OP, that really was a very interesting question. I’m not talented in mathematics unfortunately, but interesting things such as this are appreciated. It wasn’t a question I’d ever considered and while when explained properly, it’s clear enough, I sure wouldn’t have thunk it up.[/quote]
Haha. Thanks. I always think about random questions and situations such as this, especially right before bed.