- #1

- 131

- 1

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

- 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

- 6

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

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

- 1,425

- 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

- 811

- 6

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

... unless a useless definition is defined to be something that is incorrect or wrong. :tongue:I'll also note a definition can never be wrong. It may be useless, but it's never wrong.

- #11

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,833

- 961

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:

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 668

- Replies
- 31

- Views
- 9K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 16

- Views
- 4K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 5K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 3K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 953

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 985