Thursday, February 20, 2014

No.18

Why does 0! = 1 ?

Usually n factorial is defined in the following way:
    n! = 1*2*3*...*n
But this definition does not give a value for 0 factorial, so a natural question is: what is the value here of 0! ?
A first way to see that 0! = 1 is by working backward. We know that:
                1! = 1
     2! = 1!*2 
                2! = 2
     3! = 2!*3
                3! = 6
     4! = 3!*4
                4! = 24
             
We can turn this around:
                4! = 24
     3! = 4!/4
                3! = 6
     2! = 3!/3
                2! = 2
     1! = 2!/2
                1! = 1
     0! = 1!/1
                0! = 1

In this way a reasonable value for 0! can be found.
How can we fit 0! = 1 into a definition for n! ? Let's rewrite the usual definition with recurrence:
      1! = 1
      n! = n*(n-1)! for n > 1
      
Now it is simple to change the definition to include 0! :
      0! = 1
      n! = n*(n-1)! for n > 0
      
Why is it important to compute 0! ?
An important application of factorials is the computation of number combinations:
               n!
   C(n,k) = --------
            k!(n-k)!
         
C(n,k) is the number of combinations you can make of k objects out of a given set of n objects. We see that C(n,0) and C(n,n) should be equal to 1, but they require that 0! be used.
                      n!
   C(n,0) = C(n,n) = ----
                     n!0!

So 0! = 1 neatly fits what we expect C(n,0) and C(n,n) to be.
Can factorials also be computed for non-integer numbers? Yes, there is a famous function, the gamma function G(z), which extends factorials to real and even complex numbers. The definition of this function, however, is not simple:
          inf.
   G(z) = INT x^(z-1) e^(-x) dx
           0

Note that the extension of n! by G(z) is not what you might think: when n is a natural number, then G(n) = (n-1)!
The gamma function is undefined for zero and negative integers, from which we can conclude that factorials of negative integers do not exist.
(from Math Forum)

1 comment:

  1. this was also a very good explanation for why 0! = 1. you and rebecca did it differently, but they both make sense! thanks for researching

    ReplyDelete