Perhaps a better question would be: How much of the information in this thread is worth conserving?
Then again, one could ask: Is this sort of "contest" science, mathematics or urology?
It has sort of got to that hasn't it and leave the layman alone in what they believe.
So I guess for Paul he has got issues with Newton. Reading the old work Newton sets 0^0=1 and there are interesting exchanges with Leibniz, Berkeley and Mach over doing it which they call the "nearness" problem (things getting close to zero). He had to do it because of the square root but the other mathematicians of the time are not sure about him doing it. It's actually quite funny watching them work thru the argument.
Perhaps we just let him have his 0^0=0 and say Newton was wrong it really doesn't matter to us.
