- #1

- 131

- 1

what is the proof for the statement 0! = 1??

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter johncena
- Start date

- #1

- 131

- 1

what is the proof for the statement 0! = 1??

- #2

- 225

- 1

a number neither odd nor even cannot be equal to an odd number.

- #3

Hootenanny

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 9,621

- 8

But zero is an even number since it has a parity of 0.a number neither odd nor even cannot be equal to an odd number.

- #4

- 52

- 0

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.

- #5

- 131

- 1

n! = (n-1)! * n for n > 0

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?

- #6

- 1,426

- 1

- #7

- 46

- 0

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:

- #8

- 816

- 7

I'll also note a definition can never be wrong. It may be useless, but it's never wrong.

- #9

- 1,631

- 4

[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.

- #10

- 46

- 0

I'll also note a definition can never be wrong. It may be useless, but it's never wrong.

... unless a useless definition is defined to be something that is incorrect or wrong. :tongue:

- #11

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,847

- 969

But that would be a useless definition!... unless a useless definition is defined to be something that is incorrect or wrong. :tongue:

- #12

- 52

- 0

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)... unless a useless definition is defined to be something that is incorrect or wrong. :tongue:

- #13

- 46

- 0

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:

Share: