Misplaced Pages

Zero to the power of zero

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
(Redirected from 0 to the power of 0) Mathematical expression with disputed status

Zero to the power of zero, denoted as 0, is a mathematical expression that can take different values depending on the context. In certain areas of mathematics, such as combinatorics and algebra, 0 is conventionally defined as 1 because this assignment simplifies many formulas and ensures consistency in operations involving exponents. For instance, in combinatorics, defining 0 = 1 aligns with the interpretation of choosing 0 elements from a set and simplifies polynomial and binomial expansions.

However, in other contexts, particularly in mathematical analysis, 0 is often considered an indeterminate form. This is because the value of x as both x and y approach zero can lead to different results based on the limiting process. The expression arises in limit problems and may result in a range of values or diverge to infinity, making it difficult to assign a single consistent value in these cases.

The treatment of 0 also varies across different computer programming languages and software. While many follow the convention of assigning 0 = 1 for practical reasons, others leave it undefined or return errors depending on the context of use, reflecting the ambiguity of the expression in mathematical analysis.

Discrete exponents

Many widely used formulas involving natural-number exponents require 0 to be defined as 1. For example, the following three interpretations of b make just as much sense for b = 0 as they do for positive integers b:

All three of these specialize to give 0 = 1.

Polynomials and power series

When evaluating polynomials, it is convenient to define 0 as 1. A (real) polynomial is an expression of the form a0x + ⋅⋅⋅ + anx, where x is an indeterminate, and the coefficients ai are real numbers. Polynomials are added termwise, and multiplied by applying the distributive law and the usual rules for exponents. With these operations, polynomials form a ring R. The multiplicative identity of R is the polynomial x; that is, x times any polynomial p(x) is just p(x). Also, polynomials can be evaluated by specializing x to a real number. More precisely, for any given real number r, there is a unique unital R-algebra homomorphism evr : R → R such that evr(x) = r. Because evr is unital, evr(x) = 1. That is, r = 1 for each real number r, including 0. The same argument applies with R replaced by any ring.

Defining 0 = 1 is necessary for many polynomial identities. For example, the binomial theorem ( 1 + x ) n = ∑ k = 0 n ( n k ) x k {\textstyle (1+x)^{n}=\sum _{k=0}^{n}{\binom {n}{k}}x^{k}} holds for x = 0 only if 0 = 1.

Similarly, rings of power series require x to be defined as 1 for all specializations of x. For example, identities like 1 1 − x = ∑ n = 0 ∞ x n {\textstyle {\frac {1}{1-x}}=\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }x^{n}} and e x = ∑ n = 0 ∞ x n n ! {\textstyle e^{x}=\sum _{n=0}^{\infty }{\frac {x^{n}}{n!}}} hold for x = 0 only if 0 = 1.

In order for the polynomial x to define a continuous function R → R, one must define 0 = 1.

In calculus, the power rule d d x x n = n x n − 1 {\textstyle {\frac {d}{dx}}x^{n}=nx^{n-1}} is valid for n = 1 at x = 0 only if 0 = 1.

Continuous exponents

Plot of z = x. The red curves (with z constant) yield different limits as (x, y) approaches (0, 0). The green curves (of finite constant slope, y = ax) all yield a limit of 1.

Limits involving algebraic operations can often be evaluated by replacing subexpressions with their limits; if the resulting expression does not determine the original limit, the expression is known as an indeterminate form. The expression 0 is an indeterminate form: Given real-valued functions f(t) and g(t) approaching 0 (as t approaches a real number or ±∞) with f(t) > 0, the limit of f(t) can be any non-negative real number or +∞, or it can diverge, depending on f and g. For example, each limit below involves a function f(t) with f(t), g(t) → 0 as t → 0 (a one-sided limit), but their values are different: lim t → 0 + t t = 1 , {\displaystyle \lim _{t\to 0^{+}}{t}^{t}=1,} lim t → 0 + ( e − 1 / t 2 ) t = 0 , {\displaystyle \lim _{t\to 0^{+}}\left(e^{-1/t^{2}}\right)^{t}=0,} lim t → 0 + ( e − 1 / t 2 ) − t = + ∞ , {\displaystyle \lim _{t\to 0^{+}}\left(e^{-1/t^{2}}\right)^{-t}=+\infty ,} lim t → 0 + ( e − 1 / t ) a t = e − a . {\displaystyle \lim _{t\to 0^{+}}\left(e^{-1/t}\right)^{at}=e^{-a}.}

Thus, the two-variable function x, though continuous on the set {(x, y) : x > 0}, cannot be extended to a continuous function on {(x, y) : x > 0} ∪ {(0, 0)}, no matter how one chooses to define 0.

On the other hand, if f and g are analytic functions on an open neighborhood of a number c, then f(t) → 1 as t approaches c from any side on which f is positive. This and more general results can be obtained by studying the limiting behavior of the function log ⁡ ( f ( t ) g ( t ) ) = g ( t ) log ⁡ f ( t ) {\textstyle \log(f(t)^{g(t)})=g(t)\log f(t)} .

Complex exponents

In the complex domain, the function z may be defined for nonzero z by choosing a branch of log z and defining z as e. This does not define 0 since there is no branch of log z defined at z = 0, let alone in a neighborhood of 0.

History

As a value

In 1752, Euler in Introductio in analysin infinitorum wrote that a = 1 and explicitly mentioned that 0 = 1. An annotation attributed to Mascheroni in a 1787 edition of Euler's book Institutiones calculi differentialis offered the "justification"

0 0 = ( a − a ) n − n = ( a − a ) n ( a − a ) n = 1 {\displaystyle 0^{0}=(a-a)^{n-n}={\frac {(a-a)^{n}}{(a-a)^{n}}}=1}

as well as another more involved justification. In the 1830s, Libri published several further arguments attempting to justify the claim 0 = 1, though these were far from convincing, even by standards of rigor at the time.

As a limiting form

Euler, when setting 0 = 1, mentioned that consequently the values of the function 0 take a "huge jump", from ∞ for x < 0, to 1 at x = 0, to 0 for x > 0. In 1814, Pfaff used a squeeze theorem argument to prove that x → 1 as x → 0.

On the other hand, in 1821 Cauchy explained why the limit of x as positive numbers x and y approach 0 while being constrained by some fixed relation could be made to assume any value between 0 and ∞ by choosing the relation appropriately. He deduced that the limit of the full two-variable function x without a specified constraint is "indeterminate". With this justification, he listed 0 along with expressions like ⁠0/0⁠ in a table of indeterminate forms.

Apparently unaware of Cauchy's work, Möbius in 1834, building on Pfaff's argument, claimed incorrectly that f(x) → 1 whenever f(x),g(x) → 0 as x approaches a number c (presumably f is assumed positive away from c). Möbius reduced to the case c = 0, but then made the mistake of assuming that each of f and g could be expressed in the form Px for some continuous function P not vanishing at 0 and some nonnegative integer n, which is true for analytic functions, but not in general. An anonymous commentator pointed out the unjustified step; then another commentator who signed his name simply as "S" provided the explicit counterexamples (e) → e and (e) → e as x → 0 and expressed the situation by writing that "0 can have many different values".

Current situation

  • Some authors define 0 as 1 because it simplifies many theorem statements. According to Benson (1999), "The choice whether to define 0 is based on convenience, not on correctness. If we refrain from defining 0, then certain assertions become unnecessarily awkward. ... The consensus is to use the definition 0 = 1, although there are textbooks that refrain from defining 0." Knuth (1992) contends more strongly that 0 "has to be 1"; he draws a distinction between the value 0, which should equal 1, and the limiting form 0 (an abbreviation for a limit of f(t) where f(t), g(t) → 0), which is an indeterminate form: "Both Cauchy and Libri were right, but Libri and his defenders did not understand why truth was on their side."
  • Other authors leave 0 undefined because 0 is an indeterminate form: f(t), g(t) → 0 does not imply f(t) → 1.

There do not seem to be any authors assigning 0 a specific value other than 1.

Treatment on computers

IEEE floating-point standard

The IEEE 754-2008 floating-point standard is used in the design of most floating-point libraries. It recommends a number of operations for computing a power:

  • pown (whose exponent is an integer) treats 0 as 1; see § Discrete exponents.
  • pow (whose intent is to return a non-NaN result when the exponent is an integer, like pown) treats 0 as 1.
  • powr treats 0 as NaN (Not-a-Number) due to the indeterminate form; see § Continuous exponents.

The pow variant is inspired by the pow function from C99, mainly for compatibility. It is useful mostly for languages with a single power function. The pown and powr variants have been introduced due to conflicting usage of the power functions and the different points of view (as stated above).

Programming languages

The C and C++ standards do not specify the result of 0 (a domain error may occur). But for C, as of C99, if the normative annex F is supported, the result for real floating-point types is required to be 1 because there are significant applications for which this value is more useful than NaN (for instance, with discrete exponents); the result on complex types is not specified, even if the informative annex G is supported. The Java standard, the .NET Framework method System.Math.Pow, Julia, and Python also treat 0 as 1. Some languages document that their exponentiation operation corresponds to the pow function from the C mathematical library; this is the case with Lua's ^ operator and Perl's ** operator (where it is explicitly mentioned that the result of 0**0 is platform-dependent).

Mathematical and scientific software

R, SageMath, and PARI/GP evaluate x to 1. Mathematica simplifies x to 1 even if no constraints are placed on x; however, if 0 is entered directly, it is treated as an error or indeterminate. Mathematica and PARI/GP further distinguish between integer and floating-point values: If the exponent is a zero of integer type, they return a 1 of the type of the base; exponentiation with a floating-point exponent of value zero is treated as undefined, indeterminate or error.

See also

References

  1. Bourbaki, Nicolas (2004). "III.§3.5". Elements of Mathematics, Theory of Sets. Springer-Verlag.
  2. Bourbaki, Nicolas (1970). "§III.2 No. 9". Algèbre. Springer. L'unique monôme de degré 0 est l'élément unité de A; on l'identifie souvent à l'élément unité 1 de A
  3. Bourbaki, Nicolas (1970). "§IV.1 No. 3". Algèbre. Springer.
  4. Graham, Ronald; Knuth, Donald; Patashnik, Oren (1989-01-05). "Binomial coefficients". Concrete Mathematics (1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. p. 162. ISBN 0-201-14236-8. Some textbooks leave the quantity 0 undefined, because the functions x and 0 have different limiting values when x decreases to 0. But this is a mistake. We must define x = 1, for all x, if the binomial theorem is to be valid when x = 0, y = 0, and/or x = −y. The binomial theorem is too important to be arbitrarily restricted! By contrast, the function 0 is quite unimportant.
  5. Vaughn, Herbert E. (1970). "The expression 0". The Mathematics Teacher. 63: 111–112.
  6. Malik, S. C.; Arora, Savita (1992). Mathematical Analysis. New York, USA: Wiley. p. 223. ISBN 978-81-224-0323-7. In general the limit of φ(x)/ψ(x) when x = a in case the limits of both the functions exist is equal to the limit of the numerator divided by the denominator. But what happens when both limits are zero? The division (0/0) then becomes meaningless. A case like this is known as an indeterminate form. Other such forms are ∞/∞, 0 × ∞, ∞ − ∞, 0, 1 and ∞.
  7. Paige, L. J. (March 1954). "A note on indeterminate forms". American Mathematical Monthly. 61 (3): 189–190. doi:10.2307/2307224. JSTOR 2307224.
  8. ^ Möbius, A. F. (1834). "Beweis der Gleichung 0 = 1, nach J. F. Pfaff" [Proof of the equation 0 = 1, according to J. F. Pfaff]. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (in German). 1834 (12): 134–136. doi:10.1515/crll.1834.12.134. S2CID 199547186.
  9. Baxley, John V.; Hayashi, Elmer K. (June 1978). "Indeterminate Forms of Exponential Type". The American Mathematical Monthly. 85 (6): 484–486. doi:10.2307/2320074. JSTOR 2320074. Retrieved 2021-11-23.
  10. Xiao, Jinsen; He, Jianxun (December 2017). "On Indeterminate Forms of Exponential Type". Mathematics Magazine. 90 (5): 371–374. doi:10.4169/math.mag.90.5.371. JSTOR 10.4169/math.mag.90.5.371. S2CID 125602000. Retrieved 2021-11-23.
  11. Carrier, George F.; Krook, Max; Pearson, Carl E. (2005). Functions of a Complex Variable: Theory and Technique. p. 15. ISBN 0-89871-595-4. Since log(0) does not exist, 0 is undefined. For Re(z) > 0, we define it arbitrarily as 0.
  12. Gonzalez, Mario (1991). Classical Complex Analysis. Chapman & Hall. p. 56. ISBN 0-8247-8415-4. For z = 0, w ≠ 0, we define 0 = 0, while 0 is not defined.
  13. Meyerson, Mark D. (June 1996). "The x Spindle". Mathematics Magazine. Vol. 69, no. 3. pp. 198–206. doi:10.1080/0025570X.1996.11996428. ... Let's start at x = 0. Here x is undefined.
  14. ^ Euler, Leonhard (1988). "Chapter 6, §97". Introduction to analysis of the infinite, Book 1. Translated by Blanton, J. D. Springer. p. 75. ISBN 978-0-387-96824-7.
  15. Euler, Leonhard (1988). "Chapter 6, §99". Introduction to analysis of the infinite, Book 1. Translated by Blanton, J. D. Springer. p. 76. ISBN 978-0-387-96824-7.
  16. ^ Libri, Guillaume (1833). "Mémoire sur les fonctions discontinues". Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (in French). 1833 (10): 303–316. doi:10.1515/crll.1833.10.303. S2CID 121610886.
  17. Euler, Leonhard (1787). Institutiones calculi differentialis, Vol. 2. Ticini. ISBN 978-0-387-96824-7.
  18. Libri, Guillaume (1830). "Note sur les valeurs de la fonction 0". Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (in French). 1830 (6): 67–72. doi:10.1515/crll.1830.6.67. S2CID 121706970.
  19. ^ Knuth, Donald E. (1992). "Two Notes on Notation". The American Mathematical Monthly. 99 (5): 403–422. arXiv:math/9205211. Bibcode:1992math......5211K. doi:10.1080/00029890.1992.11995869.
  20. Cauchy, Augustin-Louis (1821), Cours d'Analyse de l'École Royale Polytechnique, Oeuvres Complètes: 2 (in French), vol. 3, pp. 65–69
  21. ^ Anonymous (1834). "Bemerkungen zu dem Aufsatze überschrieben "Beweis der Gleichung 0 = 1, nach J. F. Pfaff"" [Remarks on the essay "Proof of the equation 0 = 1, according to J. F. Pfaff"]. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik (in German). 1834 (12): 292–294. doi:10.1515/crll.1834.12.292.
  22. ^ Benson, Donald C. (1999). Written at New York, USA. The Moment of Proof: Mathematical Epiphanies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-19-511721-9.
  23. Edwards; Penney (1994). Calculus (4th ed.). Prentice-Hall. p. 466.
  24. Keedy; Bittinger; Smith (1982). Algebra Two. Addison-Wesley. p. 32.
  25. Muller, Jean-Michel; Brisebarre, Nicolas; de Dinechin, Florent; Jeannerod, Claude-Pierre; Lefèvre, Vincent; Melquiond, Guillaume; Revol, Nathalie; Stehlé, Damien; Torres, Serge (2010). Handbook of Floating-Point Arithmetic (1 ed.). Birkhäuser. p. 216. doi:10.1007/978-0-8176-4705-6. ISBN 978-0-8176-4704-9. LCCN 2009939668. S2CID 5693480. ISBN 978-0-8176-4705-6 (online), ISBN 0-8176-4704-X (print)
  26. "More transcendental questions". IEEE. Archived from the original on 2017-11-14. Retrieved 2019-05-27. (NB. Beginning of the discussion about the power functions for the revision of the IEEE 754 standard, May 2007.)
  27. "Re: A vague specification". IEEE. Archived from the original on 2017-11-14. Retrieved 2019-05-27. (NB. Suggestion of variants in the discussion about the power functions for the revision of the IEEE 754 standard, May 2007.)
  28. Rationale for International Standard—Programming Languages—C (PDF) (Report). Revision 5.10. April 2003. p. 182.
  29. "Math (Java Platform SE 8) pow". Oracle.
  30. ".NET Framework Class Library Math.Pow Method". Microsoft.
  31. "Built-in Types — Python 3.8.1 documentation". Retrieved 2020-01-25. Python defines pow(0, 0) and 0 ** 0 to be 1, as is common for programming languages.
  32. "math — Mathematical functions — Python 3.8.1 documentation". Retrieved 2020-01-25. Exceptional cases follow Annex 'F' of the C99 standard as far as possible. In particular, pow(1.0, x) and pow(x, 0.0) always return 1.0, even when x is a zero or a NaN.
  33. "Lua 5.3 Reference Manual". Retrieved 2019-05-27.
  34. "perlop – Exponentiation". Retrieved 2019-05-27.
  35. The R Core Team (2023-06-11). "R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing – Reference Index" (PDF). Version 4.3.0. p. 25. Retrieved 2019-11-22. 1 ^ y and y ^ 0 are 1, always.
  36. The Sage Development Team (2020). "Sage 9.2 Reference Manual: Standard Commutative Rings. Elements of the ring Z of integers". Retrieved 2021-01-21. For consistency with Python and MPFR, 0^0 is defined to be 1 in Sage.
  37. ^ "pari.git / commitdiff – 10- x ^ t_FRAC: return an exact result if possible; e.g. 4^(1/2) is now 2". Retrieved 2018-09-10.
  38. ^ "Wolfram Language & System Documentation: Power". Wolfram. Retrieved 2018-08-02.
  39. The PARI Group (2018). "Users' Guide to PARI/GP (version 2.11.0)" (PDF). pp. 10, 122. Retrieved 2018-09-04. There is also the exponentiation operator ^, when the exponent is of type integer; otherwise, it is considered as a transcendental function. ... If the exponent n is an integer, then exact operations are performed using binary (left-shift) powering techniques. ... If the exponent n is not an integer, powering is treated as the transcendental function exp(n log x).

External links

Categories: