"Any number to the power zero is one" sounds like a rule someone made up. It isn't. It is forced on you by a single consistency requirement — walk down the ladder of powers of 2 and watch what happens.
Start high:
Each time you drop the exponent by 1, the value halves — because stepping down one exponent divides by 2. So the pattern 8, 4, 2, \ldots must continue with 1. Therefore 2^0 = 1 is not a definition imposed from outside; it is the only value that keeps the halving pattern alive.
The halving ladder
Look at the numbers side by side:
Every step down the left column drops the exponent by 1. Every step down the right column divides by 2. The two columns march together, and there is no special "start" or "stop" — the pattern extends up and down forever.
The two rows n = 0 and n = -1 are where students usually hesitate. But by the logic of the ladder, they are forced: 2^0 is whatever makes 2^1 / 2 = 2^0 true, which is 1. And 2^{-1} is whatever makes 2^0 / 2 = 2^{-1} true, which is 1/2. The same logic that gave you 2^3 = 8 gives you 2^0 = 1 and 2^{-1} = 1/2. One rule, no exceptions.
The same truth from the division law
The halving picture is one route to a^0 = 1. Here is another, using the division law a^m / a^n = a^{m-n}.
Take m = n. Then a^m / a^m = a^{m - m} = a^0.
But a^m / a^m = 1 for any nonzero a (anything divided by itself is one). So a^0 = 1.
Both routes — the halving pattern and the division law — land at the same conclusion. And they must: the laws of exponents are internally consistent, and any consistent extension to n = 0 can only give one answer.
Why the halving argument and the division-law argument are really the same: "halving when you drop the exponent by one" is the division law with n = 1 specialised to base 2. The halving picture is the visual trace of the division law; the division law is the halving pattern written as an equation. They are not two independent reasons — they are the same reason seen from two angles.
Why a \ne 0 in "a^0 = 1"
The rule is "a^0 = 1 for every nonzero a." What happens at a = 0? Try the division law with a = 0: 0^m / 0^m is 0/0, which is undefined — no value of 0^0 will make the laws of exponents consistent for every base.
This is why textbooks often say "0^0 is left undefined" (or, in certain combinatorial contexts, defined to be 1 for convenience). It is the one crack in the otherwise universal rule. For every base a \ne 0, the rule holds without exception.
The same trick gives you negative exponents
Continue the halving ladder one more step, and you are forced into negative exponents. 2^0 = 1, so 2^{-1} = 1/2, and 2^{-2} = 1/4, and 2^{-3} = 1/8.
The general rule that falls out: a^{-n} = 1/a^n. Negative exponents are not a new invention; they are the natural continuation of the same ladder that gave you a^0 = 1. Every position on the ladder is filled by whatever value keeps the halving pattern intact.
Putting it to use
You will see a^0 = 1 in many places where at first it looks strange.
- Polynomials. The constant term of p(x) = 3x^2 + 5x + 7 is 7 \cdot x^0 = 7, because x^0 = 1. That is what "the constant term" means.
- Binomial theorem. In the expansion of (1 + x)^n, the first and last terms are \binom{n}{0} x^0 = 1 and \binom{n}{n} x^n = x^n. The " x^0" being 1 is what makes the constant term equal to \binom{n}{0} = 1.
- Compound interest. A principal P after 0 years is P (1 + r)^0 = P. Not P \cdot 0 (which would erase all your money), but P \cdot 1 = P (no interest accrued yet). The rule x^0 = 1 is what makes the compound-interest formula sensible at the starting time.
The one-line takeaway
a^0 = 1 is not a quirky exception. It is the only value that keeps the pattern a^{n+1} = a \cdot a^n — and the division law — running without a gap. Walk down the ladder 8, 4, 2, 1 and the 1 is waiting for you.
Related: Exponents and Powers · Roots and Radicals · Fractions and Decimals · Operations and Properties