Waste less time on Facebook — follow Brilliant.
×

Proof of 0! = 1

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, \[0!=1\]

Note by Ameya Salankar
2 years ago

No vote yet
1 vote

  Easy Math Editor

MarkdownAppears as
*italics* or _italics_ italics
**bold** or __bold__ bold

- bulleted
- list

  • bulleted
  • list

1. numbered
2. list

  1. numbered
  2. list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
paragraph 1

paragraph 2

paragraph 1

paragraph 2

[example link](https://brilliant.org)example link
> This is a quote
This is a quote
    # I indented these lines
    # 4 spaces, and now they show
    # up as a code block.

    print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.

print "hello world"
MathAppears as
Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3 \( 2 \times 3 \)
2^{34} \( 2^{34} \)
a_{i-1} \( a_{i-1} \)
\frac{2}{3} \( \frac{2}{3} \)
\sqrt{2} \( \sqrt{2} \)
\sum_{i=1}^3 \( \sum_{i=1}^3 \)
\sin \theta \( \sin \theta \)
\boxed{123} \( \boxed{123} \)

Comments

Sort by:

Top Newest

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

Karthik Venkata - 2 years ago

Log in to reply

I believe that you are right and you are wrong. While you're right when you say that "0! is defined to be 1", 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?

Kartik Sharma - 2 years ago

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 !

Karthik Venkata - 2 years ago

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.

Kuldeep Guha Mazumder - 1 year, 11 months ago

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 \( 0! = 1 \).

Karthik Venkata - 2 years ago

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.

Ameya Salankar - 2 years ago

Log in to reply

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...