Does any number to the power of 0 get 1? Why?

Any number other than 0 to the power of 0 is equal to 1

0 doesn't make sense. Because the result of multiplying several zeros should be zero, and in mathematics, the zero power of a number is set to one, if the zero power of crossing zero is also equal to one, it does not conform to the basic law of numbers. There are books in junior high school that read:

Any non-zero number to the power of zero is 1, and zero has no power zero. As an imaginary number, it can be conceived as a limit form, which may be infinitesimal or any number.

This comes from a theorem: multiply by the power of the same base, the base does not change, and the power is added.

For example, 2 2*2 (-2), one side of which can be turned into 2 (2-2)=2 0, and the other side can be seen as 2*(1 2), and this operation becomes the expression x 0=1 by extension. However, in the derivation process, it is always impossible to avoid negative power, that is, x is the denominator, and if the base x is zero, it is meaningless. So it's any number other than 0, and the zero power is 1

Why is the power of any number to the power of 0 equal to 1?

Any number x (x unbalanced number Qi equals 0) to the power of 0 can be written as Bi Xun.

x^0x^（m-m）

x^m/x^m

0 to the power of 0, meaningless. The other numbers to the power of 0 are 1.

You're wrong, the power of 0 of any number is equal to 1 except 0, and the power of 0 of a number is obtained like this: x 5 x 5 = 1, very clear. From a computational point of view, it is:

x 5 x 5=x (5-5)=x 0, so x 0=1But x 5 x 5 in the beam x can not be equal to 0, so the number of oak acres except 0 is 1 to the power of 0, over.

n times of a n times of a = 1 (a is not equal to 0).

n times of a n times a = (n-n) times of a = 0 times of a (a is not equal to 0) according to the division of the same base power: m times of a n times a = (m-n) times of a (a is not equal to 0)).

The age of closure to the power of 0 of a number is 1 (except 0).

0 is not to the power of 0.

The exponential law of the sedan or the contradiction of the eyes:

0 0 = 0 (1-1) = 0 1 0 1=0 0, while 0 0 cannot be defined.

Reasons for not being established:

The applicability of the exponential law has its limitations, when the exponential law encounters a negative number of 0 or the denominator is 0, it does not apply, and since it is not applicable, it cannot be used to negate 0 0 = 1

If the law of regimental numbers can be applied, there will be other contradictions, not only in 0 0

0=0 1=0 (2-1)=0 2 0 1=0 0, becoming 0 itself cannot be defined.

The nth power of x is better than the n power of x = 0 power of x = 1, that is to say, the n power of a divided by the m power of a is equal to the n-m power of a, when n = m, the result is the 0 times of a good year, m = n means that the denominator of the front of the socks is the same, that is, it is equal to 1, so the 0 power of a is equal to 1 Again, 0 does not have a 0 power.

First of all, the nth power of a number is equal to the (n m) power of this number (where n is larger than m) of this number (where n is larger than m), so the n power of a number divided by the n power of this number is expressed as the (n-n) power of this number, that is, the 0 power of this number, and because the (n-n) power of this number is equal to 1, it is stipulated that anything except 0.