Re: [Axiom-developer] Complex exponentiation and 0

[William Sit]

Bill Page wrote:
>http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&name=CardinalArithmetic

Actually, if one accepts the convention that there is a morphism from 0 to y in
Cardinal numbers, then I don't see any reason not to accept the convention that
there is a morphism from y to 0 (as there would be one in the opposite category,
and therefore in the original category). This of course would create difficulty
because one wants 0^y to be 0 for y \ne 0, not 1.

So it's all a matter of convenience for the "laws" to hold "more generally".



William