Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

# MATH

## Posts

• Registered User
edited May 2008
musanman wrote: »
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
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
okay come on my explanation is pretty good

Kovak on
• __BANNED USERS
edited May 2008
i am dumb as hell

imo

yourclothes on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Kovak wrote: »
okay

N!

factorial counts how many ways you can line up N distinct objects

You know like you have 3 objects

you have 3 options, then one is taken so you have 2 options, then there is one left so you have 1 option

3*2*1

Now how many ways do you have to line up 0 objects

1

1 ways

No, I can't line up 0 objects in any fashion.

musanman on
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
okay

N!

factorial counts how many ways you can line up N distinct objects

You know like you have 3 objects

you have 3 options, then one is taken so you have 2 options, then there is one left so you have 1 option

3*2*1

Now how many ways do you have to line up 0 objects

1

1 ways

No, I can't line up 0 objects in any fashion.

hey asshole that is actually 1 way to line them up

Kovak on
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
if you can show me how you can pick more than the option of not lining up 0 objects then well damn im pretty sure you broke everything

Kovak on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Kovak wrote: »
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
okay

N!

factorial counts how many ways you can line up N distinct objects

You know like you have 3 objects

you have 3 options, then one is taken so you have 2 options, then there is one left so you have 1 option

3*2*1

Now how many ways do you have to line up 0 objects

1

1 ways

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.

musanman on
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
okay

N!

factorial counts how many ways you can line up N distinct objects

You know like you have 3 objects

you have 3 options, then one is taken so you have 2 options, then there is one left so you have 1 option

3*2*1

Now how many ways do you have to line up 0 objects

1

1 ways

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

Kovak on
• __BANNED USERS
edited May 2008
i think math makes me sick

yourclothes on
• __BANNED USERS
edited May 2008
kovak you are making my tummy hurt

yourclothes on
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
i'm sorry

Kovak on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
But I thought the whole thing was there was no cake?

Javen on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Kovak wrote: »
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
okay

N!

factorial counts how many ways you can line up N distinct objects

You know like you have 3 objects

you have 3 options, then one is taken so you have 2 options, then there is one left so you have 1 option

3*2*1

Now how many ways do you have to line up 0 objects

1

1 ways

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.

musanman on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
How many ways can you not eat cake?

None

because cake is delicious

Javen on
• Registered User
edited May 2008
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
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
javen i love you

but

why you gotta make me hit you baby

Kovak on
• __BANNED USERS
edited May 2008
the cake is a spy

(comic depicting a cake turning into a spy)

yourclothes on
• Registered User
edited May 2008
Javen wrote: »
How many ways can you not eat cake?

None

because cake is delicious

What about yellow sheet cake, with plain "white" frosting?

KingAgamemnon on
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
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

Kovak on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Javen wrote: »
How many ways can you not eat cake?

None

because cake is delicious

this cake comment is a lie

I've had like 1 cake that was delicious.

musanman on
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
hay guys also factorial works for values that aren't integers

Kovak on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Kovak wrote: »
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
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
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

Kovak on
• Registered User
edited May 2008
So, how have you explained it?

KingAgamemnon on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Kovak wrote: »
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
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
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
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

Kovak on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
whenever I see an exclamation point I still see it as saying whatever comes before it excitedly.

One! Equals one.

Javen on
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
javen lets get married

ill take care of your poor literature majoring self with my hard science

Kovak on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Javen wrote: »
whenever I see an exclamation point I still see it as saying whatever comes before it excitedly.

One! Equals one.

I scream. "6! is not SIIIIXXXXXXXXXX" it's 6*5*4*3*2*1

musanman on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Why can't it be both

Javen on
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
i mean really 0! is just like parallel lines

there are certain basic things you have to assume

Kovak on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Kovak wrote: »
i mean really 0! is just like parallel lines

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.

musanman on
• __BANNED USERS
edited May 2008
what is the sexiest math

yourclothes on
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
i mean really 0! is just like parallel lines

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.

Kovak on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
what is the sexiest math

geometry is the sexiest no doubt...it pretty much created how we argue

musanman on
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
musanman wrote: »
what is the sexiest math

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

Kovak on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Kovak wrote: »
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
i mean really 0! is just like parallel lines

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.

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
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
calculus will do things to your number you never thought possible though

Kovak on
• did a lot of drugs married cher?Registered User regular
edited May 2008
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
i mean really 0! is just like parallel lines

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.

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

Kovak on
• Registered User regular
edited May 2008
Kovak wrote: »
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
musanman wrote: »
Kovak wrote: »
i mean really 0! is just like parallel lines

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.

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.

musanman on