Proving 0!=1: An Analysis of the Fundamental Mathematical Concept

  • Thread starter Thread starter rock.freak667
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that 0! = 1, with participants emphasizing that this is largely a matter of definition rather than a strict mathematical proof. The factorial function is defined recursively, and to maintain consistency in combinatorial formulas, 0! is defined as 1. The gamma function is mentioned as a way to derive this result, showing that 0! can be linked to Γ(1), which equals 1. Ultimately, while some argue for a more rigorous proof, the consensus is that accepting 0! = 1 is a convenient convention in mathematics. This definition is essential for various mathematical applications, particularly in combinatorics.
  • #31


stefounet said:
If I understand correctly, you define n!=Γ(n+1) for all integer and I define n!=n(n-1)...1. In the scope of my definition, 0! is NOT defined.

Depending on the OP's definition of n!, either the Γ function argument is (obviously) a satisfactory answer to his question, or there is no absolute answer because it is a matter of convention. In this later case, agreed, the Γ function argument would be one among many other justifications of the convenient convention 0!=1.

Considering "The attempt at a solution" of the OP, it seemed obvious to me that he was working in the set of integers, and that he was looking for an (impossible) arithmetic proof. I agree that your analytic definition is on top of the pure arithmeric one, but it does rely on a much heavier set of axioms.

Apologies if I'm starting to sound like a troll :)
Cheers

Everybody is right here. So this is beating an old dead horse. Defining n!=n(n-1)...1 clearly makes no sense if n=0. Making 0! an arbitrary definition. But then the notation n!=n(n-1)...1 is also vague. Best to define it inductively by (n+1)!=n!*(n+1). But where to start the induction? If you start it by defining 1!=1 that works. But you could also start it by defining 0!=1 and get the same function. Clearly there's a problem with defining (-1)! equal to some number and trying to proceed from there. Starting by defining 0!=1 and going inductively from there agrees with the gamma function definition and gives you the usual definition of n!. So why not 0!=1?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K