`  == 0⁰ — limits and continuity ==  Returning to the topic with neverending fascination: I thought of changing the sentence  : In most settings not involving continuity (for instance, those in which only integral exponents are considered), interpreting 00  as 1 simplifies formulas… to  : In most settings not involving limits, interpreting 00  as 1 simplifies formulas… and — predictably enough — such a bold change was reverted. Discuss? I remember we had a discussion when we worked out the section to stand as it does now, a long time ago, but I don't recall this specific wording being discussed. (Apologies if it has already been.)  I'd argue that ``a setting that involves continuity`` also implicitly involves a limit, but the converse is not necessarily true. As the article says, ``00 must be handled as an indeterminate form when it is an algebraic expression obtained in the context of determining limits`` — and otherwise can be consistently, with no trouble, defined as 1. And defining 00 to be 1 does simply formulae even when continuity is involved; indeed the last few (and especially the last) of the given examples where such a definition helps:  most certainly ``involve continuity``. It seems quite obvious to me that the only argument against defining 00=1 is one involving limits and indeterminate forms; the functions xy and 0y are discontinuous at y=0 no matter what, and the value of 00 is irrelevant to their (dis)continuity.   `