The product of 0 and anything is $0$, and seems like it would be reasonable to assume that $0! = 0$. I'm perplexed as to why I have to account for this condition in my factorial function (Trying to learn …

Inclusion of $0$ in the natural numbers is a definition for them that first occurred in the 19th century. The Peano Axioms for natural numbers take $0$ to be one though, so if you are working with these …

@Arturo: I heartily disagree with your first sentence. Here's why: There's the binomial theorem (which you find too weak), and there's power series and polynomials (see also Gadi's answer). For all this, …

@Swivel But 0 does equal -0. Even under IEEE-754. The only reason IEEE-754 makes a distinction between +0 and -0 at all is because of underflow, and for +/- ∞, overflow. The intention is if you have …

For example, $3^0$ equals 3/3, which equals $1$, but $0^0$ "equals" 0/0, which equals any number, which is why it's indeterminate. Also, 0/0 is undefined because of what I just said.

Jan 12, 2015 · In the context of natural numbers and finite combinatorics it is generally safe to adopt a convention that $0^0=1$. Extending this to a complex arithmetic context is fraught with risks, as is …

Nov 17, 2014 · I began by assuming that $\dfrac00$ does equal $1$ and then was eventually able to deduce that, based upon my assumption (which as we know was false) $0=1$. As this is clearly false …

Oct 28, 2019 · In the context of limits, $0/0$ is an indeterminate form (limit could be anything) while $1/0$ is not (limit either doesn't exist or is $\pm\infty$). This is a pretty reasonable way to think about …

This definition of the "0-norm" isn't very useful because (1) it doesn't satisfy the properties of a norm and (2) $0^ {0}$ is conventionally defined to be 1.

Your title says something else than "infinity times zero". It says "infinity to the zeroth power". It is also an indefinite form because $$\infty^0 = \exp (0\log \infty) $$ but $\log\infty=\infty$, so the argument of …