Incorrect. I applied the formula 1!=1 inline on the left, then moved the 1* to the left side, illustrated as a division by one. Send an e-mail to the professor who gave me this proof, if you don't believe me. His email is above.
>>7
I see your appeal to authority and raise my I don't really care what's goin on in this thread
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-19 3:19
n!=/=n if n!=n!
simple laws of equal exchange.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-19 15:02
But 1! = 1 and 2! = 2. Why is this any different?
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-19 15:02
>>9 But 1! = 1 and 2! = 2. Why is this any different?
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-22 21:30
0! is a special case that is simply defined to be 1 for convenience. There's no "proof." If this was given as a problem in a mathematics class, your teacher is either ignorant or trying to be cute, both of which are bad.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-23 8:41
The n! is defined as n!=1*2*3*...*n . Says nothing about 0. So let's discover...
>>12
if that is true every calculator would have the value stored somewhere instead of determining it with the algorithm.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-26 23:51
>>15
It is true; calculator algorithms are irrelevant. What you're looking for is the reason behind defining 0! = 1, not proof of it. Defining 0! = 1 is consistent with the canonical convention that there is exactly one permutation of zero objects, and makes arithmetic involving 0! work out properly.
Name:
R2010-11-27 16:24
Actually, you should look for a book, "Gamma" bye Julian Havil. There's a chapter devoted to the Gamma Function, where it is discussed as a generalized factorial function (when the input is displaced by 1), and can be used to get interesting results such as (-1/2)! which gives something like the square root of pi :D. The three important steps that associate the general factorial to the gamma function are given and I believe it suffices to solve for gamma(1) to get what you need. Sincerely
R.
Muahahahaha, killing flies with nukes is my specialty :D
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-10 4:56
>>17
Interesting but,
The thing is if you use sterling's formula you would get a 0.
Wouldn't it make more sense not to define it and just deal with the resulting non-continuous functions if necessary?
More interesting would be who first defined 0! as 1 and why.
Name:
Anonymous2010-12-13 22:41
1 is the identity element for multiplication. If you define x! as prod_{i=1}^x i, then the product is empty, so it is the identity element, 1.