I amended it to the Gamma Function, do you still disagree? I'm not wrong in this case.
I don't think you understand my complaint.
I am not disagreeing with the mathematics of 0! = 1. There is no doubt in my mind, as I can prove it using sound math logic and even argue for the point of 0! = 1.
All of the math background and experience with algebra will not convince me. You must argue this point using no mathematics for the conversation to be interesting.
That would be above me then, I've only explored the Gamma Function to do fun things like take negative factorials, and complex factorials.
Well, a google search brings up this, which fits your criteria. Not exactly rigorous but logically sound.
KingAgamemnon on
0
Options
Kovakdid a lot of drugsmarried cher?Registered Userregular
Also, musaman, arbitrarily saying things like "you must argue this point using no mathematics, in order to be interesting" is ridiculous. I'll argue things how they need to be argued.
KingAgamemnon on
0
Options
Kovakdid a lot of drugsmarried cher?Registered Userregular
Also, musaman, arbitrarily saying things like "you must argue this point using no mathematics, in order to be interesting" is ridiculous. I'll argue things how they need to be argued.
honestly coming in and demanding that mathematical facts be proven without math is a bit like
going to church and asking the preacher to explain everything without god
Also, musaman, arbitrarily saying things like "you must argue this point using no mathematics, in order to be interesting" is ridiculous. I'll argue things how they need to be argued.
honestly coming in and demanding that mathematical facts be proven without math is a bit like
going to church and asking the preacher to explain everything without god
or even speaking
he's just gotta wave his dick around
ok I'll show my hand...
I teach algebra and statistics and both of these subjects involve this discussion. You can't argue with 9th graders using mathematics like a gamma function. I am not satisfied saying "because"
I would like to keep the conversation going, so more points of view are better.
musanman on
0
Options
Kovakdid a lot of drugsmarried cher?Registered Userregular
Also, musaman, arbitrarily saying things like "you must argue this point using no mathematics, in order to be interesting" is ridiculous. I'll argue things how they need to be argued.
honestly coming in and demanding that mathematical facts be proven without math is a bit like
going to church and asking the preacher to explain everything without god
or even speaking
he's just gotta wave his dick around
ok I'll show my hand...
I teach algebra and statistics and both of these subjects involve this discussion. You can't argue with 9th graders using mathematics like a gamma function. I am not satisfied saying "because"
I would like to keep the conversation going, so more points of view are better.
Honestly, even the definition of the simple factorial function is defined from 1 to infinity and just sets 0! as 1.
My lining up way works as one of the simplest reasons to explain why it's gotta be 1 is in probability calculations.
There really is no "simple" and sound mathematical proof.
Your students need to learn that sometimes they just gotta accept something till they get smarter
Also, musaman, arbitrarily saying things like "you must argue this point using no mathematics, in order to be interesting" is ridiculous. I'll argue things how they need to be argued.
honestly coming in and demanding that mathematical facts be proven without math is a bit like
going to church and asking the preacher to explain everything without god
or even speaking
he's just gotta wave his dick around
ok I'll show my hand...
I teach algebra and statistics and both of these subjects involve this discussion. You can't argue with 9th graders using mathematics like a gamma function. I am not satisfied saying "because"
I would like to keep the conversation going, so more points of view are better.
Honestly, even the definition of the simple factorial function is defined from 1 to infinity and just sets 0! as 1.
My lining up way works as one of the simplest reasons to explain why it's gotta be 1 is in probability calculations.
There really is no "simple" and sound mathematical proof.
Your students need to learn that sometimes they just gotta accept something till they get smarter
Well...if you accept 1! = 1 then define the factorial function as x! = x * (x-1)!
so:
1! = 1 * (1-1)!
1 = 1 * 0!
1 = 0!
Nobody really has a problem with 1!, but fuck zero factorial.
musanman on
0
Options
Kovakdid a lot of drugsmarried cher?Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
that is probably the best mathematical solution you're going to get that algebra students can understand
The lining up is the best nonmathematical explanation I can think of
I can rock geometry hardcore. There aren't a whole lot of assumptions there that's a definition.
Now rationalizing the denominator...we were big on "no negative exponents" so that's about my best defense but really, why do we do that.
there's no point to rationalizing
it's just kinda dumb really.
also. there are 5 assumptions in euclidean geometry.
There are 5 basic postulates, P5 being the one that is "optional." That creates non-euclid geometry (when I say P5 I mean the one about assuming lines with less than 180 interior sum will result in an intersection)
musanman on
0
Options
Kovakdid a lot of drugsmarried cher?Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
calculus will do things to your number you never thought possible though
Kovak on
0
Options
Kovakdid a lot of drugsmarried cher?Registered Userregular
I can rock geometry hardcore. There aren't a whole lot of assumptions there that's a definition.
Now rationalizing the denominator...we were big on "no negative exponents" so that's about my best defense but really, why do we do that.
there's no point to rationalizing
it's just kinda dumb really.
also. there are 5 assumptions in euclidean geometry.
There are 5 basic postulates, P5 being the one that is "optional." That creates non-euclid geometry (when I say P5 I mean the one about assuming lines with less than 180 interior sum will result in an intersection)
I can rock geometry hardcore. There aren't a whole lot of assumptions there that's a definition.
Now rationalizing the denominator...we were big on "no negative exponents" so that's about my best defense but really, why do we do that.
there's no point to rationalizing
it's just kinda dumb really.
also. there are 5 assumptions in euclidean geometry.
There are 5 basic postulates, P5 being the one that is "optional." That creates non-euclid geometry (when I say P5 I mean the one about assuming lines with less than 180 interior sum will result in an intersection)
that's what i'm saying.
That is just as much as saying 0! = 1
it's really almost as basic
I dunno I think of P5 as more of a fork in mathematics though. 0! = 1 is never really argued against. Nobody is like "well what is 0! was 0 let's create a branch of math"
I hate leaving students unsatisfied with "because it is" when math is sound enough to be explained.
Posts
That would be above me then, I've only explored the Gamma Function to do fun things like take negative factorials, and complex factorials.
Well, a google search brings up this, which fits your criteria. Not exactly rigorous but logically sound.
imo
No, I can't line up 0 objects in any fashion.
hey asshole that is actually 1 way to line them up
None is 1. I LIKE THE CUT OF YOUR GIB SAILOR.
OKAY to explain how none is possibly an option
YOU HAVE A CAKE
HOW MANY CHOICES DO YOU HAVE IF YOU CAN PICK FROM THESE ACTIONS
eat cake
not eat cake
nothing
Actually in that case I think you have 2 cases. Nothing isn't really a choice because if it was, there wouldn't be a cake.
But I understand your idea "no ideas to line the up is the only option" = 1
My problem is the multiplication, and zero, is that when you multiply fucking anything by 0 guess what you get.
None
because cake is delicious
but
why you gotta make me hit you baby
(comic depicting a cake turning into a spy)
please give me money now
What about yellow sheet cake, with plain "white" frosting?
honestly coming in and demanding that mathematical facts be proven without math is a bit like
going to church and asking the preacher to explain everything without god
or even speaking
he's just gotta wave his dick around
this cake comment is a lie
I've had like 1 cake that was delicious.
ok I'll show my hand...
I teach algebra and statistics and both of these subjects involve this discussion. You can't argue with 9th graders using mathematics like a gamma function. I am not satisfied saying "because"
I would like to keep the conversation going, so more points of view are better.
Honestly, even the definition of the simple factorial function is defined from 1 to infinity and just sets 0! as 1.
My lining up way works as one of the simplest reasons to explain why it's gotta be 1 is in probability calculations.
There really is no "simple" and sound mathematical proof.
Your students need to learn that sometimes they just gotta accept something till they get smarter
Well...if you accept 1! = 1 then define the factorial function as x! = x * (x-1)!
so:
1! = 1 * (1-1)!
1 = 1 * 0!
1 = 0!
Nobody really has a problem with 1!, but fuck zero factorial.
The lining up is the best nonmathematical explanation I can think of
One! Equals one.
ill take care of your poor literature majoring self with my hard science
I scream. "6! is not SIIIIXXXXXXXXXX" it's 6*5*4*3*2*1
there are certain basic things you have to assume
I can rock geometry hardcore. There aren't a whole lot of assumptions there that's a definition.
Now rationalizing the denominator...we were big on "no negative exponents" so that's about my best defense but really, why do we do that.
there's no point to rationalizing
it's just kinda dumb really.
also. there are 5 assumptions in euclidean geometry.
geometry is the sexiest no doubt...it pretty much created how we argue
algebra is like geometry's high class cousin
it's way sexier
There are 5 basic postulates, P5 being the one that is "optional." That creates non-euclid geometry (when I say P5 I mean the one about assuming lines with less than 180 interior sum will result in an intersection)
that's what i'm saying.
That is just as much as saying 0! = 1
it's really almost as basic
I dunno I think of P5 as more of a fork in mathematics though. 0! = 1 is never really argued against. Nobody is like "well what is 0! was 0 let's create a branch of math"
I hate leaving students unsatisfied with "because it is" when math is sound enough to be explained.