>>7624650This is not necessarily true for general x.
>>7624407This is just one of those things that the public like to make a big deal of, when in fact what we do is just take 0^0 = 1 by convention (some fields take this to be 0).
There is no value in making a big philosophical fuss over it.
Similarly, there are such arguments for whether 0 is a natural number because "it's not a counting number" etc etc, when in actual fact we take 0 to be a natural number in some fields, and 0 to not be a natural number in other fields.
