1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What's the proof?

  1. Apr 24, 2009 #1
    what is the proof for the statement 0! = 1??
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 24, 2009 #2
    a number neither odd nor even cannot be equal to an odd number.
     
  4. Apr 24, 2009 #3

    Hootenanny

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But zero is an even number since it has a parity of 0.
     
  5. Apr 24, 2009 #4
    Assuming you mean the factorial of 0, then factorial is usually defined recursively by,
    0! = 1
    n! = (n-1)! * n for n > 0
    So it's true by the definition of the factorial. If you mean why 0 doesn't equal 1 then you have to state explicitly some formal properties of the integers. For instance a popular way to describe the non-negative integers is the Peano Axioms which among other things state that 0 is a non-negative integer, there is no natural number whose successor is 0 and 1 is defined as the successor to 0. Hence if 0 = 1 then 0 would be the successor to 0 which contradicts the axiom that 0 isn't the successor of any non-negative number.

    Alternatively if you are allowed to use properties like parity, and the fact that 0 and 1 have different parity, then they can't be equal because parity is uniquely determined. Note: 0 has even parity while 1 has odd parity; 0 is NOT neither odd nor even.
     
  6. Apr 24, 2009 #5
    you said n! = (n-1)! * n for n > 0
    so taking n = 1,
    1! = (1-1)! * 1 = 1
    0! * 1 = 1
    thus, 0! = 1/1 = 1
    is this proof correct?
     
  7. Apr 24, 2009 #6
    There is no proof, it's by definition. It gives a basis for a recursive definition of n! as n! = n*(n-1)! and 0! = 1.
     
  8. Apr 24, 2009 #7
    Like others said, this is by definition. You might be interested in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function" [Broken].
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  9. Apr 24, 2009 #8
    I'll also note a definition can never be wrong. It may be useless, but it's never wrong.
     
  10. Apr 24, 2009 #9
    A motivation(maybe) behind defining 0!=1, might be if we look at the combinations of class k taken from a set of n elements.
    [tex]C_{k}^{n}[/tex]


    THen, since this is nothing else but the set of all subsets of k elements taken from a set of n elements, if we have:

    [tex]C_0^n=\frac{n!}{(n-0)!0!}[/tex] then since there is only one set that contains 0 elements taken from any set of n elements (the empty set), it follows that

    C_0^n should equal 1, for this to happen 0! should be 1.
     
  11. Apr 24, 2009 #10
    ... unless a useless definition is defined to be something that is incorrect or wrong. :tongue:
     
  12. Apr 25, 2009 #11

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    But that would be a useless definition!
     
  13. Apr 26, 2009 #12
    A definition cannot be incorrect or wrong. What a group of definitions can be is inconsistent, which is subtly different :) Determining if a set of axioms is consistent is a difficult problem (and consistency is the cornerstone for godel's theorem as with an inconsistent set of axioms you can prove stupid things like 0=1, 1=2, etc)
     
  14. Apr 27, 2009 #13
    I was kinda playing. But what I think is more subtle is the use of the words "wrong" and "incorrect." If one were trying to make a definition of something containing the essence of an idea, such as curvature, then I could see how some definitions can be considered wrong or incorrect. Something being ill-defined often carries connotations of incorrectness or inconsistency, as its name implies. However, stating that the truth/validity in the defining of definition X is false is something I find somewhat meaningless.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2009
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: What's the proof?
Loading...