[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;284919]???

(1) g(0) is well defined for g(x) = x^2-3, so why exclude it?
[/QUOTE]

I can tell you this from what was described in the don blazy threads x^-29 = 1/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0/0 for x=0 no ? a lot of illegal divisions by 0 there.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;284919]
(1) g(0) is well defined for g(x) = x^2-3, so why exclude it?
[/QUOTE]
it may be that f not defined there ? (well, don't tell me that 0 at any power, including negative, is zero)

[QUOTE=LaurV;284928]it may be that f not defined there ? (well, don't tell me that 0 at any power, including negative, is zero)[/QUOTE]

It is indeed possible/(highly probable!) that f is not defined at 0. But since
the domain is unspecified, we don't know.

[QUOTE=LaurV;284928]it may be that f not defined there ? (well, don't tell me that 0 at any power, including negative, is zero)[/QUOTE]

It is indeed possible/(highly probable!) that f is not defined at 0. But since
the domain is unspecified, we don't know. OTOH, one can construct
domains where f(0) is defined. It starts to get weird here.
[e.g. consider the division points of an abelian variety defined over the projective Riemann sphere]

2 + 2 = 3, for sufficiently small values of 2.


*nod*

[QUOTE=S34960zz;284941]2 + 2 = 3, for sufficiently small values of 2.


*nod*[/QUOTE]

?????????????????

This [i] was [/i] a nice conversation. What compelled you to inject spam?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;284935]It is indeed possible/(highly probable!) that f is not defined at 0. But since
the domain is unspecified, we don't know. OTOH, one can construct
domains where f(0) is defined. It starts to get weird here.
[e.g. consider the division points of an abelian variety defined over the projective Riemann sphere][/QUOTE]

thanks for this comment it spurred me to look up those preliminaries again on my new computer. I think I get a little more of the puzzle of functions because the notation looks similar to sets as it's performed on sets and it also now looks familiar to the notation of equivalence classes which kinda helps I think.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;284952]?????????????????

This [i] was [/i] a nice conversation. What compelled you to inject spam?[/QUOTE]It's an old and, IMO, rather poor joke. Just ignore him/her/it.

small values of 2
 

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;284952]?????????????????

This [I] was [/I] a nice conversation. What compelled you to inject spam?[/QUOTE]

Apologies to the thread. Further discussion moved to PM.

Another one bites the dust
 

[QUOTE=S34960zz;284941]2 + 2 = 3, for sufficiently small values of 2.


*nod*[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;284952]?????????????????

This [I]was [/I]a nice conversation. What compelled you to inject spam?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xilman;284963]It's an old and, IMO, rather poor joke. Just ignore him/her/it.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=S34960zz;284972]Apologies to the thread. Further discussion moved to PM.[/QUOTE]

Well it made me smile for a mo:smile:

Bob strikes again!

David

(puts on moderator's hat)
(picks up staff of office)

Davieddy, it would improve the state of the world were you to refrain from posting any more of this kind of content-free dig at RDS.

Damn, that staff of office is heavy. And [b]who[/b] designed the hat? Turquoise lace is fine in its place, but with crimson spangles?