>>14331989Okay, yes, now that you explained it I can see how that is what you meant in
>>14331679, but I have a hard time reading that interpretation in the original post alone. What you say here is correct, but in my opinion it takes some reading between the lines to get that out of
>>14331679.
In particular, it sweeps under the rug the crucial difference between the *indeterminate form* 0^0, and the *expression* 0^0. The fact that 0^0 is an indeterminate form means, as you say, something about open sets with a limit point at (0, 0); but it does not say anything about the value of the expression 0^0. Your phrasing tends to give mathlets the idea that "0^0 is an expression whose value is <indeterminate> which is presumably some kind of <undefined>", which is not the case, but common careless phrasings do suggest it.
