[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 5 KB, 285x491, 1390428176416.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6306029 No.6306029[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

So where is the fallacy in this argument?

>> No.6306037

>x^-0=0/x

>> No.6306040

x^-0 is equal to 1, not 0/x

>> No.6306042

>>6306029
>-0=0=+0
>x^0=1

>> No.6306061

>>6306029
0^o isn't well defined. lim_x->0 x^0 =1 however. At the same time lim x->0 0^x =0. Clearly we need to be a little more careful in our analysis...

>> No.6306071

x^-0 = 1/x^0, not 0/x

>> No.6306079

x^-0=x^+0=1

>> No.6306093

>>6306029
<span class="math">x^0[/spoiler] or <span class="math">x^{-0}[/spoiler] = undefined

>> No.6306097

>>6306093
<span class="math">x^0=x^{-0}=1 [/spoiler]

>> No.6306099
File: 59 KB, 455x451, 1390430977091.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6306099

>>6306097

>> No.6306108

x^0 = x^(1-1) = x^1 * x^-1 = x * 1/x = x/x = 1

>> No.6306137

x^0 = x/x

>> No.6306169

>>6306029
I'm not following the second step. X^0 is 1, and 1^(-1) is still 1

>> No.6306224

>>6306029
Basically, it seems to assume
x^-n = n/x
whereas in reality, x^-n = 1/x^n