Simple way of explaining the empty product

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I understand that 3 raised to the power of, say, 2 is 9 because 3 times 3 equals 9.



But is it possible to explain in same simple terms how 3 raised to the power of 0 is 1?






abstract-algebra







share|cite|improve this question

























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    I understand that 3 raised to the power of, say, 2 is 9 because 3 times 3 equals 9.



    But is it possible to explain in same simple terms how 3 raised to the power of 0 is 1?






    abstract-algebra







    share|cite|improve this question























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      I understand that 3 raised to the power of, say, 2 is 9 because 3 times 3 equals 9.



      But is it possible to explain in same simple terms how 3 raised to the power of 0 is 1?






      abstract-algebra







      share|cite|improve this question













      I understand that 3 raised to the power of, say, 2 is 9 because 3 times 3 equals 9.



      But is it possible to explain in same simple terms how 3 raised to the power of 0 is 1?






      abstract-algebra




      abstract-algebra






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 29 mins ago









      brilliant

      1797




      1797




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          4
          down vote



          accepted










          $x^0$ doesn't mean anything before we define what it means. We can define it to mean anything, but we usually want to define things so that they make sense.



          We start by defining $x^k$ as $underbracexcdot x cdots x_ktext times$ because it's a useful way of writing the product.



          Using this definition, we can notice the following interesting property:




          For any pair of integers $k_1, k_2$ such that $k_1 > k_2$ and any positive real number $xin mathbb R$ we have $$fracx^k_1x^k_2 = x^k_1-k_2$$




          Now, we like this property. We want this property be true for other pairs of $k_1, k_2$. In order for this rule to also be true if $k_1=k_2$, we have to define $x^0=1$, so that's what we define it as. We do it because it's useful.






          share|cite|improve this answer



























            up vote
            5
            down vote













            $$3=3^1=3^1+0=3^1times3^0=3times3^0$$implying that $3^0=1$.






            share|cite|improve this answer




















              Your Answer




              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              );
              );
              , "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: false,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













               

              draft saved


              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2942128%2fsimple-way-of-explaining-the-empty-product%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest

















              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              4
              down vote



              accepted










              $x^0$ doesn't mean anything before we define what it means. We can define it to mean anything, but we usually want to define things so that they make sense.



              We start by defining $x^k$ as $underbracexcdot x cdots x_ktext times$ because it's a useful way of writing the product.



              Using this definition, we can notice the following interesting property:




              For any pair of integers $k_1, k_2$ such that $k_1 > k_2$ and any positive real number $xin mathbb R$ we have $$fracx^k_1x^k_2 = x^k_1-k_2$$




              Now, we like this property. We want this property be true for other pairs of $k_1, k_2$. In order for this rule to also be true if $k_1=k_2$, we have to define $x^0=1$, so that's what we define it as. We do it because it's useful.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                4
                down vote



                accepted










                $x^0$ doesn't mean anything before we define what it means. We can define it to mean anything, but we usually want to define things so that they make sense.



                We start by defining $x^k$ as $underbracexcdot x cdots x_ktext times$ because it's a useful way of writing the product.



                Using this definition, we can notice the following interesting property:




                For any pair of integers $k_1, k_2$ such that $k_1 > k_2$ and any positive real number $xin mathbb R$ we have $$fracx^k_1x^k_2 = x^k_1-k_2$$




                Now, we like this property. We want this property be true for other pairs of $k_1, k_2$. In order for this rule to also be true if $k_1=k_2$, we have to define $x^0=1$, so that's what we define it as. We do it because it's useful.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  4
                  down vote



                  accepted







                  up vote
                  4
                  down vote



                  accepted






                  $x^0$ doesn't mean anything before we define what it means. We can define it to mean anything, but we usually want to define things so that they make sense.



                  We start by defining $x^k$ as $underbracexcdot x cdots x_ktext times$ because it's a useful way of writing the product.



                  Using this definition, we can notice the following interesting property:




                  For any pair of integers $k_1, k_2$ such that $k_1 > k_2$ and any positive real number $xin mathbb R$ we have $$fracx^k_1x^k_2 = x^k_1-k_2$$




                  Now, we like this property. We want this property be true for other pairs of $k_1, k_2$. In order for this rule to also be true if $k_1=k_2$, we have to define $x^0=1$, so that's what we define it as. We do it because it's useful.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  $x^0$ doesn't mean anything before we define what it means. We can define it to mean anything, but we usually want to define things so that they make sense.



                  We start by defining $x^k$ as $underbracexcdot x cdots x_ktext times$ because it's a useful way of writing the product.



                  Using this definition, we can notice the following interesting property:




                  For any pair of integers $k_1, k_2$ such that $k_1 > k_2$ and any positive real number $xin mathbb R$ we have $$fracx^k_1x^k_2 = x^k_1-k_2$$




                  Now, we like this property. We want this property be true for other pairs of $k_1, k_2$. In order for this rule to also be true if $k_1=k_2$, we have to define $x^0=1$, so that's what we define it as. We do it because it's useful.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 24 mins ago









                  5xum

                  84.3k386151




                  84.3k386151




















                      up vote
                      5
                      down vote













                      $$3=3^1=3^1+0=3^1times3^0=3times3^0$$implying that $3^0=1$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer
























                        up vote
                        5
                        down vote













                        $$3=3^1=3^1+0=3^1times3^0=3times3^0$$implying that $3^0=1$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer






















                          up vote
                          5
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          5
                          down vote









                          $$3=3^1=3^1+0=3^1times3^0=3times3^0$$implying that $3^0=1$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          $$3=3^1=3^1+0=3^1times3^0=3times3^0$$implying that $3^0=1$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered 24 mins ago









                          Vera

                          2,038414




                          2,038414



























                               

                              draft saved


                              draft discarded















































                               


                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2942128%2fsimple-way-of-explaining-the-empty-product%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest
































































                              Comments

                              Post a Comment

                              Popular posts from this blog

                              What does second last employer means? [closed]

                              Image
                              Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
                              Read more

                              Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

                              Image
                              Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugins nextgis share | improve this question edited 3 hours ago PolyGeo ♦ 51.9k 17 77 233 asked 4 hours ago IanGS 16 4 New contributor IanGS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct. add a comment  |  up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugin...
                              Read more

                              One-line joke

                              A one-liner is a joke that is delivered in a single line. A good one-liner is said to be pithy - concise and meaningful. [1] Comedians and actors use this comedic method as part of their act, e.g. Jimmy Carr, Tommy Cooper, Rodney Dangerfield, Norm Macdonald, Ken Dodd, Stewart Francis, Zach Galifianakis, Mitch Hedberg, Anthony Jeselnik, Milton Jones, Shappi Khorsandi, Jay London, Mark Linn-Baker, Demetri Martin, Groucho Marx, Dan Mintz, Emo Philips, Tim Vine, Steven Wright and Henny Youngman and Arnold Schwarzenegger. [ citation needed ] Many fictional characters are also known to deliver one-liners, including James Bond, who usually includes pithy and laconic quips after disposing of a villain. [ citation needed ] Examples "A baby seal walks into a club." "A dyslexic man walks into a bra." (Anonymous) "There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't." "Venison's dear, isn't it?" (Jimmy Carr) "An escala...
                              Read more