Why does 0! = 1 0! = 1? All I know of factorial is that x! x! is equal to the product of all the numbers that come before it. The product of 0 and anything is 0 0, and seems like it would be
.0i = 0 0 i = 0 is a good choice, and maybe the only choice that makes concrete sense, since it follows the convention 0x = 0 0 x = 0. On the other hand, 01 = 0 0 1 = 0 is
Is there a consensus in the mathematical community, or some accepted authority, to determine whether zero should be classified as a natural number? It seems as though formerly $0$ was
Several years ago I was bored and so for amusement I wrote out a proof that 0 0 0 0 does not equal 1 1. I began by assuming that 0 0 0 0 does equal 1 1 and then was eventually able to
.Is a constant raised to the power of infinity indeterminate? I am just curious. Say, for instance, is $0^\\infty$ indeterminate? Or is it only 1 raised to the infinity that is?
92 The other comments are correct: 1 0 1 0 is undefined. Similarly, the limit of 1 x 1 x as x x approaches 0 0 is also undefined. However, if you take the limit of 1 x 1 x as x x approaches
.I would call it naive in the sense that when referring to quot;indeterminate forms in the form of 0 0 0 0 quot; we arent referring to the actual explicit division of zero by zero, but rather
.In the set of real numbers, there is no negative zero. However, can you please verify if and why this is so? Is zero inherently quot;neutralquot;?
.The above picture is the full background to it. It does not invoke quot;indeterminate formsquot;. It does not require you to write 0 0 0 0 and then ponder what that might mean. We
.But if x = 0 x = 0 then xb x b is zero and so this argument doesnt tell you anything about what you should define x0 x 0 to be. A similar argument should convince you
Why does 0! = 1 0! = 1? All I know of factorial is that x! x! is equal to the product of all the numbers that come before it. The product of 0 and anything is 0 0, and seems like it would be
.0i = 0 0 i = 0 is a good choice, and maybe the only choice that makes concrete sense, since it follows the convention 0x = 0 0 x = 0. On the other hand, 01 = 0 0 1 = 0 is
Is there a consensus in the mathematical community, or some accepted authority, to determine whether zero should be classified as a natural number? It seems as though formerly $0$ was
Several years ago I was bored and so for amusement I wrote out a proof that 0 0 0 0 does not equal 1 1. I began by assuming that 0 0 0 0 does equal 1 1 and then was eventually able to
.Is a constant raised to the power of infinity indeterminate? I am just curious. Say, for instance, is $0^\\infty$ indeterminate? Or is it only 1 raised to the infinity that is?
92 The other comments are correct: 1 0 1 0 is undefined. Similarly, the limit of 1 x 1 x as x x approaches 0 0 is also undefined. However, if you take the limit of 1 x 1 x as x x approaches
.I would call it naive in the sense that when referring to quot;indeterminate forms in the form of 0 0 0 0 quot; we arent referring to the actual explicit division of zero by zero, but rather
.In the set of real numbers, there is no negative zero. However, can you please verify if and why this is so? Is zero inherently quot;neutralquot;?
.The above picture is the full background to it. It does not invoke quot;indeterminate formsquot;. It does not require you to write 0 0 0 0 and then ponder what that might mean. We
.But if x = 0 x = 0 then xb x b is zero and so this argument doesnt tell you anything about what you should define x0 x 0 to be. A similar argument should convince you
Why does 0! = 1 0! = 1? All I know of factorial is that x! x! is equal to the product of all the numbers that come before it. The product of 0 and anything is 0 0, and seems like it would be
.0i = 0 0 i = 0 is a good choice, and maybe the only choice that makes concrete sense, since it follows the convention 0x = 0 0 x = 0. On the other hand, 01 = 0 0 1 = 0 is
Is there a consensus in the mathematical community, or some accepted authority, to determine whether zero should be classified as a natural number? It seems as though formerly $0$ was
Several years ago I was bored and so for amusement I wrote out a proof that 0 0 0 0 does not equal 1 1. I began by assuming that 0 0 0 0 does equal 1 1 and then was eventually able to
.Is a constant raised to the power of infinity indeterminate? I am just curious. Say, for instance, is $0^\\infty$ indeterminate? Or is it only 1 raised to the infinity that is?
92 The other comments are correct: 1 0 1 0 is undefined. Similarly, the limit of 1 x 1 x as x x approaches 0 0 is also undefined. However, if you take the limit of 1 x 1 x as x x approaches
.I would call it naive in the sense that when referring to quot;indeterminate forms in the form of 0 0 0 0 quot; we arent referring to the actual explicit division of zero by zero, but rather
.In the set of real numbers, there is no negative zero. However, can you please verify if and why this is so? Is zero inherently quot;neutralquot;?
.The above picture is the full background to it. It does not invoke quot;indeterminate formsquot;. It does not require you to write 0 0 0 0 and then ponder what that might mean. We
.But if x = 0 x = 0 then xb x b is zero and so this argument doesnt tell you anything about what you should define x0 x 0 to be. A similar argument should convince you
Why does 0! = 1 0! = 1? All I know of factorial is that x! x! is equal to the product of all the numbers that come before it. The product of 0 and anything is 0 0, and seems like it would be
.0i = 0 0 i = 0 is a good choice, and maybe the only choice that makes concrete sense, since it follows the convention 0x = 0 0 x = 0. On the other hand, 01 = 0 0 1 = 0 is
Is there a consensus in the mathematical community, or some accepted authority, to determine whether zero should be classified as a natural number? It seems as though formerly $0$ was
Several years ago I was bored and so for amusement I wrote out a proof that 0 0 0 0 does not equal 1 1. I began by assuming that 0 0 0 0 does equal 1 1 and then was eventually able to
.Is a constant raised to the power of infinity indeterminate? I am just curious. Say, for instance, is $0^\\infty$ indeterminate? Or is it only 1 raised to the infinity that is?
92 The other comments are correct: 1 0 1 0 is undefined. Similarly, the limit of 1 x 1 x as x x approaches 0 0 is also undefined. However, if you take the limit of 1 x 1 x as x x approaches
.I would call it naive in the sense that when referring to quot;indeterminate forms in the form of 0 0 0 0 quot; we arent referring to the actual explicit division of zero by zero, but rather
.In the set of real numbers, there is no negative zero. However, can you please verify if and why this is so? Is zero inherently quot;neutralquot;?
.The above picture is the full background to it. It does not invoke quot;indeterminate formsquot;. It does not require you to write 0 0 0 0 and then ponder what that might mean. We
.But if x = 0 x = 0 then xb x b is zero and so this argument doesnt tell you anything about what you should define x0 x 0 to be. A similar argument should convince you