0!

0!

Posers and Puzzles

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

g
Wayward Soul

Your Blackened Sky

Joined
12 Mar 02
Moves
15128
20 Jun 04

0!=1!=!, and the question to you is...why?! (! is factorial, i.e. teh product of all the numbers up to that nubmer, like 5!=1*2*3*4*5 - but you all knew that, didn't you?)

M

New Jersey

Joined
07 Jul 03
Moves
1546
20 Jun 04

n! is defined as follows:
0!=1
for n>0, n!=n*(n-1)!

which is basically the same thing as teh product of all the numbers up to that nubmer, but it explains the 0 case

g
Wayward Soul

Your Blackened Sky

Joined
12 Mar 02
Moves
15128
20 Jun 04

Originally posted by Mouse2
n! is defined as follows:
0!=1
for n>0, n!=n*(n-1)!

which is basically the same thing as teh product of all the numbers up to that nubmer, but it explains the 0 case
don't you hate it when you post a puzzle that isn't so much a puzzle as a bit of knowledge that people'll get first time anyway? ah well-i've gotta find some more puzzle, or dig up some old uns...ah well-how about, for the mean time, integrate lnx?

r
CHAOS GHOST!!!

Elsewhere

Joined
29 Nov 02
Moves
17317
21 Jun 04

You'll just get x*lnx - x plus a constant. How about do it other than a simple way though.

Genius's modified puzzle:

Integrate ln x in the most convoluted way possible...

T
Kupikupopo!

Out of my mind

Joined
25 Oct 02
Moves
20443
21 Jun 04

Originally posted by genius
0!=1!=!, and the question to you is...why?! (! is factorial, i.e. teh product of all the numbers up to that nubmer, like 5!=1*2*3*4*5 - but you all knew that, didn't you?)
I love this argument for 0!

0! = 1! /1 = 1/1 = 1

r
CHAOS GHOST!!!

Elsewhere

Joined
29 Nov 02
Moves
17317
23 Jun 04

Why not just define k! as the number of permutations of k objects? If you have zero objects, then you have one possible permutation, so 0! = 1 with no special case definition.

Zeist, Holland

Joined
11 Sep 03
Moves
19384
24 Jun 04
2 edits

I think those reasons are all made up after it was defined this way. That was probably because it fits best that 0!=1 and not that 0!=0, so people looked for 'logical' explanations. But that's the mathematicians way.

g
Wayward Soul

Your Blackened Sky

Joined
12 Mar 02
Moves
15128
24 Jun 04

Originally posted by piderman
I think those reasons are all made up after it was defined this way. That was probably because it fits best that 0!=1 and not that 0!=0, so people looked for 'logical' explanations. But that's the mathematicians way.
well-how about "prove that 0!=0"? 😛

Now With Added BA

Loughborough

Joined
04 Jul 02
Moves
3790
24 Jun 04
1 edit

Originally posted by piderman
I think those reasons are all made up after it was defined this way. That was probably because it fits best that 0!=1 and not that 0!=0, so people looked for 'logical' explanations. But that's the mathematicians way.
Even sillier is the following definition: n! := Gamma(n+1)

o
rockin soccer kid

over there

Joined
09 Jun 04
Moves
3002
24 Jun 04

i think another reason 0!=1 is because if you end up with a 0! in the denominator of a fraction, then the whole sentence becomes undefined. and sometimes the are solutions. like n choose r -
5 choose 0-
5!/(5-0)!*0!
there is one way to choose 0 out of 5, so it is possible. if 0!=0, then it would be undefined, whereas now it is 1.

o
rockin soccer kid

over there

Joined
09 Jun 04
Moves
3002
24 Jun 04

by the way, im gonna be a freshman in highschool (but im in advanced math), so if that doesnt make any sense, its my fault, not urs.

B
Non-Subscriber

RHP IQ

Joined
17 Mar 05
Moves
1345
06 Sep 05

Originally posted by royalchicken
Why not just define k! as the number of permutations of k objects? If you have zero objects, then you have one possible permutation, so 0! = 1 with no special case definition.
Yep.

g
Wayward Soul

Your Blackened Sky

Joined
12 Mar 02
Moves
15128
07 Sep 05

Originally posted by Bowmann
Yep.
?