Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: 0! = 1
Replies: 25   Last Post: Oct 8, 2003 6:35 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 1,119 Registered: 12/6/04
Re: 0! = 1
Posted: Aug 10, 2001 11:06 PM

> "Virgil" <vmhjr2@home.com> wrote in message
> news://vmhjr2-08FC87.16133710082001@news1.denver1.co.home.com...

> > In article <3b73c07e.0@katana.legend.co.uk>,
> > "Carl W." <no-one@dev.null> wrote:
> >

> > > Virgil <vmhjr2@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news://vmhjr2-E3F3EE.23043509082001@news1.denver1.co.home.com...
> > >

> > > > (2) if n! = n*(n-1)!, and n = 1, what is (n-1)!?
> > >
> > > This is a slightly dodgy argument in that we could say the same for n =

> 0.
> > >
> > > i.e. if n! = n((n-1)!), and n = 0, what is (n-1)!?

> >
> >
> > 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 = (0-1)! ?

>
>
> 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*(n-1)!, then (0-1)! be found from 0!
similarly.

I was refuting that thesis.

Date Subject Author
8/9/01 michael
8/9/01 The Scarlet Manuka
8/9/01 Joseph Hertzlinger
8/10/01 Stephen Montgomery-Smith
8/10/01 Dave Seaman
8/10/01 Virgil
8/10/01 Carl W.
8/10/01 Mario G.
8/10/01 Virgil
8/10/01 Duane Jones
8/10/01 Virgil
8/11/01 Duane Jones
8/11/01 David Lloyd-Jones
8/11/01 Virgil
8/12/01 David Lloyd-Jones
8/12/01 Virgil
8/13/01 Pertti Lounesto
8/13/01 Virgil
8/12/01 David W. Cantrell
8/12/01 Virgil
8/14/01 Carl W.
8/14/01 Virgil
8/15/01 Carl W.
8/10/01 Etienne
10/8/03 |-|erc