Virgil
Posts:
1,119
Registered:
12/6/04


Re: 0! = 1
Posted:
Aug 10, 2001 11:06 PM


In article <IY_c7.168$Iw2.8744@petpeeve.ziplink.net>, "Duane Jones" <gauss@ziplink.net> wrote:
> "Virgil" <vmhjr2@home.com> wrote in message > news://vmhjr208FC87.16133710082001@news1.denver1.co.home.com... > > In article <3b73c07e.0@katana.legend.co.uk>, > > "Carl W." <noone@dev.null> wrote: > > > > > Virgil <vmhjr2@home.com> wrote in message > > > news://vmhjr2E3F3EE.23043509082001@news1.denver1.co.home.com... > > > > > > > (2) if n! = n*(n1)!, and n = 1, what is (n1)!? > > > > > > This is a slightly dodgy argument in that we could say the same for n = > 0. > > > > > > i.e. if n! = n((n1)!), and n = 0, what is (n1)!? > > > > > > Not so. Anyone can solve 1 = 1*x for x, which defines x = 0! but how > > do you solve 1 = 0*x for x, which is needed to define x = (01)! ? > > > How so? In (2) above, 1! can only be defined after knowing 0!. You > inadvertently assume 1! = 1 to show that 0! = 1. > > Cheers, > Duane > > >
You are not following the thread. Carl W. assumed 1! = 1 but that 0! was naturally undefined.
Carl W. then said that if 0! could be found from 1! by downward use of the relation n! = n*(n1)!, then (01)! be found from 0! similarly.
I was refuting that thesis.

