0! = 1 can be proved using many methods. While some use patterns or logic, giving reasons for mathematical consistency & this & that, I shall use calculus here.

We have the gamma function denoted by \(\Gamma(x)\), which is defined by

\[\Gamma(x) = \int_0^\infty \mathrm{t}^{x-1}{e}^{-t}\,\mathrm{d}t\]

This function arose while solving an interpolation problem. The problem was to find a monotonic function defined over \((1, \infty)\) which took the value \(n!\) at \(n\). It can be solved by evaluating the above improper integral which converges for \(x>0\).

The gamma function is defined for the whole of real line provided we take \( \Gamma(x)=\infty\) for \(x=0,-1,-2,\dots\).

We are interested in the case when \(x=n\) that is, a positive integer.

Integrating by parts, we have \[\Gamma(n) = (n-1) \int_0^\infty \mathrm{t}^{(n-1)-1}{e}^{-t}\,\mathrm{d}t\]

Notice that the integral is nothing but \(\Gamma(n-1)\). Thus we have, \(\Gamma(n)= (n-1) \times \Gamma(n-1)\).

Repeating the above process, \[\Gamma(n)= (n-1)(n-2)(n-3) \dots\dots 1 \times \Gamma(1)\]

But, \[\Gamma(1) = \int_0^\infty \mathrm{t}^{x-1}{e}^{-t}\,\mathrm{d}t\] \[=\left.\frac{e^{-t}}{-1}\right|_0^{\infty}\] \[=-(0-1) = 1\]

So, \(\Gamma(n) = (n-1)!\)

This must imply that \(\Gamma(1) = 0!\) and we have already proved that \(\Gamma(1)=1\). Thus, \[0!=1\]

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestAs far as I came to know, you are going against the chain of reasoning. \( 0! \) is

definedto be \( 1 \), and hence the results follow. Just like falling into the trap of circular definitions, one shouldn't try to prove a fundamental definition by using stuff derived/dependent on itself.Do check Wolfram-MathWorld and Wikipedia links.

Log in to reply

I believe that you are right and you are wrong. While you're right when you say that "

0!isdefinedto be1", I disagree with your connection of Gamma function as "derived from factorial". It is "independent" but yeah, it would be correct to say that to prove 0! = 1, one should not use Gamma function , while when one says that one need to prove \(\Gamma(1) = 1\), one should use Gamma function. This is the beauty of mathematics and we should not harm it. you agree with me?Log in to reply

I do agree with you.

I did not mean that the Gamma function is derived from the factorial, but meant that the result \( \Gamma(n) = (n-1)! \) is consistent with combinatorial definition of a factorial only because of this assumption that \( 0! = 1 \). In other words, \( 0! = 1 \) was a convention taken to maintain this consistency.

A same function having two different definitions among different branches of mathematics always leads to such confusion about the order of reasoning !

Log in to reply

0!=1 is a mathematical definition, in order to maintain consistency in the mathematical structure. It cannot be proved and any attempt to prove it is somewhat cyclic in nature.

Log in to reply

Is this proof correct? \[n!=n(n-1)!\] \[\frac{n!}{n}=(n-1)!\] For \(n=1\) \[\frac{1!}{1}=0!\] So \(0!=1\)

Log in to reply

Definitely no ! The identity \( n! = n(n-1)! \) for every positive integer \( n \) is valid because of the assumption \( 0! = 1 \).

Log in to reply

I searched and found that the recurrence formula for the gamma function was \(\Gamma(n+1)=n!\) But then what's wrong with \(\Gamma(n)=(n-1)!\) It doesn't seem to meet any contradiction.

Log in to reply