Why is the Factorial of Zero Defined as One?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ananthu017
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Factorial Zero
ananthu017
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
can u give me the method to find the factorial of zero ?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
What is the definition of the factorial?
 
0!=\Gamma(1)=\intop_{0}^{\infty} t^{1-1}\exp(-t)\mathrm{d}t=-[\exp(-t)]_{0}^{\infty}=-(0-1)=1.

Alternatively, there's exactly one way to arrange an empty set.
 
DeIdeal said:
0!=\Gamma(1)=\intop_{0}^{\infty} t^{1-1}\exp(-t)\mathrm{d}t=-[\exp(-t)]_{0}^{\infty}=-(0-1)=1.

I highly doubt the OP would be able to make heads or tails of this.

n! = n(n-1)!

Work with this definition, it's all you need.
 
So your answer to the original question is that 0!= 0(-1)!? But what is (-1)!?

(Yes, you can write that 1!= 1(0!) and, if you know that 1!= 1, then it follows that 0!= 1. But better is just to state the basic definition of n! that asserts 0!= 1 for as part of the definition.)
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top