1
$\begingroup$

I've always been puzzled by the value $0^0$. I remembered that one of my professor claimed that it was truely equal to $1$. However I think that most people would say, from an analytic point of view, that it is indeterminate which I agree with. Translating $0^0$ into $e^{0 \ln(0)}$ makes the problem appear explicitly.

I also know the classic limit on $\mathbb{R}$, $\lim_{x\to 0^+} x^x = 1$ which could make us define by convention that $0^0$ is indeed $1$. However I once stumbled upon this Numberphile video in which (around 9:00) Matt Parker claims that even though the two sided limits $\lim_{x\to 0^{\pm}} x^x = 1$, when we consider the whole complex plan, this doesn't hold anymore and that's why we cannot say that $0^0 = 1$. Curious, I tried to explicitly prove that the limit doesn't exist. I don't have a good knowledge of complex analysis but here is what I tried :

Let $z \in \mathbb{C},\ z = r\ e^{i \theta}$ with $r \in \mathbb{R^+},\ \theta \in [0,2 \pi[$. $$ \lim_{|z| \to 0} z^z = \lim_{r\to 0^+} (r\cdot e^{i\theta})^{r\cdot e^{i\theta}} = \lim_{r\to 0^+} \overbrace{r^{re^{i\theta}}}^{(A)}\cdot \overbrace{e^{i\theta\cdot r e^{i\theta}}}^{(B)} $$ We can cut the limit of product assuming both limits exist : $$ (A) = \lim_{r\to 0^+} e^{\ln(r) r e^{i\theta}} = e^{\lim_{r \to 0^+} \ln(r) r e^{i\theta}} = e^0 = 1 \\ (B) = e^{\lim_{r\to 0^+} i\theta\cdot r e^{i\theta}} = e^0 = 1 $$ Therefore $$ \lim_{|z| \to 0} z^z = 1 $$ independently from $\theta$ which proves that the limit is $1$ everywhere in the complex plan. Is my reasoning wrong ? Is the video wrong ? Thank you !


Expanding a bit my question, since it seems that my reasoning is indeed wrong, could you also provide me an example of 2 paths in the complex plan which lead different limit values ?

  • 1
    You're assuming $(ab)^c = a^cb^c$ holds when both the bases $a$ and $b$, and the exponent $c$ are complex. That's not true. Also, if the domain of possible exponents limited to the integers (which is true in many different contexts, like when working with power series, or combinatorics), then it makes sense to define $0^0 = 1$.2017-02-18
  • 1
    The problem isn't when the numbers $x,y$ are equal. The problem is when $x,y\to 0$ at different rates. For example, $x_n=\frac{1}{2^n},y_n=\frac{1}{n}$ has $(x_n,y_n)\to 0$ but $x_n^{y_n}=\frac{1}{2}$ for all $n$.2017-02-18
  • 0
    @ThomasAndrews Yes you're right that $\lim_{(x,y) \to (0,0)} x^y$ doesn't exist and from that we can conclude that $0^0$ cannot be assigned a meaningful value. However what about $x^x$, or $z^z$ ?2017-02-18
  • 1
    @Zubzub No, I never said that $0^0$ cannot be given a meaningful value. I'm firmly in the $0^0=1$ camp. I think $0^0$ is an indeterminate form, however.2017-02-18
  • 1
    The fact that many people (including myself) define $0^0=1$ (the exponent is an *integer number*) has nothing to do with $\lim_{x\to0^+}x^x=1$. If you want to define $0^0$ the only sensible value is $1$; if you don't want to, you're free to choose so, but then you ***cannot*** write that $e^x=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{x^n}{n!}$ is valid for every $x$.2017-02-18
  • 0
    You can not use limits to conclude anything about $0^0$ because $x^y$ is not continuous at the origin. Computing a function-value with limits is only correct if the function is continuous at that point. You may still assign a value to $0^0$, but not by means of limits.2017-02-18

2 Answers 2

2

I have good and bad news for you. The good news: in the most applied scenarios, $z^z$ indeed converges to $1$ as $z$ converges $0$. The bad news: it is not so easy!

In your question you demonstrated, that approaching the zero on straight lines gives you $1$. But you should not forget the context in which you made this observation. At first, for complex numbers even the expression $z^w$ is not as easy as it seems. You have to use the defintion

$$z^w=\exp( w\log(z)).$$

This involves using the complex logarithm which cannot be defined on the whole complex plane $\mathbb C$ at the same time (if we are interested in $\log(z)$ beeing analytic). Instead, one cuts out a curve that connects $0$ and $\infty$. The remaining set $\mathbb C^*$ has an analytic definition of $\log(z)$, unique up to a constant term $2\pi k i,k\in\mathbb Z$. So choosing such a cut plane and such a term will give you also a unique definition of $\log(z)$ and $z^w$ or $-$ important in our case $-$ of $z^z$. Finally, for such a unique definition there is a unique continuous function $\phi:\mathbb C^*\rightarrow \mathbb R$ with

$$ \log(z)=\log|z|+i\phi(z). $$

Note that studying the behavior of $z^z$ in $z=0$ is essentially the same as studying $z\log(z)$ ($="\!\log(z^z)\!"$) in $z=0$. The latter one converges for $z\rightarrow0$, if and only if $z^z$ converges and the limit $z^*$ of $z\log(z)$ gives a limit $\exp(z^*)$ for $z^z$. So the question is: $\lim_{z\rightarrow 0}{z\log(z)}=0$?

The answer turns out to be dependent only on the cut we made in order to define $\log(z)$. You, most probably, chose the principal branch of the complex logarithm, which is defined on $\mathbb C$ minus the non-positive real line. In this case $z\log(z)\rightarrow0$ (see below). But you have to exclude your path $r \exp(i\phi)$ with $\phi=\pi$ as this path is located directly inside the cut of $\mathbb C^*$.

Lets look at approaching the zero in general with a curve $z_t$. We write $z_t=r_t\exp(i\phi(z_t))$, so $r_t\rightarrow 0$ with $t\rightarrow \infty$. We then have

\begin{align} z_t\log(z_t) &= r_t\exp(i\phi(z_t))\cdot(\log r_t+i \phi(z_t))\\ &=\underbrace{r_t \log r_t}_{\rightarrow \,0} \cdot \exp(i\phi(z_t))+ r_t \phi(z_t) \cdot\exp(i\phi(z_t)). \end{align}

So the behavior when approaching zero only depends on the second term (the first one vanishes; the behavior of $z\log(z)$ on the positive real line is known). In the limit, $r_t \phi(z_t)$ determines the absolute value of $z^*$ and $\phi(z_t)$ determines the argument of $z^*$. The following cases are possible:

  1. $z_t$ more or less directly approaches zero without winding itself around the origin, i.e. $\phi(z_t)$ is bounded. Then $r_t \phi(z_t)\rightarrow 0$, independent of the convergence of $\phi(z_t)$. This gives the usual result $z\log(z)\rightarrow 0$.
  2. $z_t$ slowly spirals around the origin, i.e. $\phi(z_t)$ is unbounded but in $\mathrm o(r_t^{-1})$. So still $r_t\phi_t\rightarrow 0$ and we have the usual result.
  3. $z_t$ spirals around the origin faster, i.e. $\phi(z_t)$ is unbounded and in $\Theta(r_t^{-1})$. But now, even if $r_t\phi_t$ convergec, the limit $z_t\log(z_t)$ does not exist as the argument does not converge. Also, $z_t\log(z_t)$ is not divergent, but oscillates.
  4. $z_t$ spirals around the origin even faster, i.e. $\phi(z_t)$ is unbounded and in $\Omega(r_t^{-1})$. Now, $r_t\phi_t\rightarrow\pm\infty$. $z_t\log(z_t)$ diverges to complex infinity (converges to the northpole of the Riemann sphere).

As you can see, none of these case gives convergence to a limit other than $0$. Finally, note that the number of turns (and the pace of turning) of $z_t$ around the origin is determined by the cut of $\mathbb C^*$. If the cut only turns around the origin a finite number of times, so will $z_t$.

enter image description here

So the reason why you could only find $z\log(z)\rightarrow 0$ was, that you used the principal branch of the complex logarithm, where the cut is a straight line from the origin to the left. But there are indeed cuts giving you either no convergence, or even divergence.


Note that even if there is no curve $z_t\rightarrow 0$ that will give you any other suggestion than $z \log (z)=0$, there are indeed sequences $z_n\rightarrow 0$ that will give you any result you want, say $z_n\log(z_n)\rightarrow z^*=r^*\exp(i\phi^*)$. Choose $z_n$ and an appropriate cut so that

\begin{align} \phi(z_n)&=2\pi n+\phi^*,\\ r_n&=\frac{r^*}{2\pi n}. \end{align}

Then $r_n\phi(z_n)\rightarrow r^*$ and the arguments are at all times equivalent to $\phi^*$.

  • 0
    Very detailed answer, thank you :)2017-02-20
1

The real problem with defining $0^0=1$ is not the case $z^z$.

We say $0^0$ is indeterminate because there are sequences $a_n, b_n$ with $$\lim a_n = 0,\quad\text{and}\quad\lim b_n = 0$$ but not $$\lim a_n^{b_n}=1.$$ These cases do not have $a_n = b_n$. They have $a_n$ much smaller than $b_n$

This is similar to not defining $$ \frac{0}{0}=1 $$ even though $$ \lim_{z\to 0} \frac{z}{z} = 1 $$