24 Jul '06 21:05>
Originally posted by BowmannToo late.
Don't tell me what can and cannot be done ðŸ˜
Originally posted by Ramiri15Ok I read the article in wikipedia and it just states the same tired arguments which boil down to essentially..."we have to state O!=1 or else it screws up a bunch of our number theories"
Search "empty product" on Wikipedia for a nice explanation. By the way, in response to Bowmann, infinity - infinity is an indeterminate form, therefore the operation can't be performed.
Originally posted by uzlessIt's not 0=1, you're getting it wrong.
Ok I read the article in wikipedia and it just states the same tired arguments which boil down to essentially..."we have to state O!=1 or else it screws up a bunch of our number theories"
Just because something screws up a model that works well for most things, it doesn't mean you should discount it, or fix it by just making a statement that is more philos ...[text shortened]... back and fixed their model.
Perhaps a re-visit of this 0=1 nonsense would prove uzfull
Originally posted by uzlessas mr delivery said, there is only one way of arranging 0 giraffes on his kitchen table-the way where there is none. thus, 0!=1...
Ok I read the article in wikipedia and it just states the same tired arguments which boil down to essentially..."we have to state O!=1 or else it screws up a bunch of our number theories"
Just because something screws up a model that works well for most things, it doesn't mean you should discount it, or fix it by just making a statement that is more philos ...[text shortened]... back and fixed their model.
Perhaps a re-visit of this 0=1 nonsense would prove uzfull
Originally posted by GinRoseThe reason that the reasons given so far seem unnatural to some posters is because they don't properly understand that mathematics is currently founded upon functions mapping sets to sets - rather than formulae containing numbers and letters.
OK now tell me why 1!=1, but 0! also =1. I just never got it.
Originally posted by uzlessYou really are useless.
Ok I read the article in wikipedia and it just states the same tired arguments which boil down to essentially..."we have to state O!=1 or else it screws up a bunch of our number theories"
Just because something screws up a model that works well for most things, it doesn't mean you should discount it, or fix it by just making a statement that is more philos ...[text shortened]... back and fixed their model.
Perhaps a re-visit of this 0=1 nonsense would prove uzfull
Originally posted by TommyCIgnoring Xanthos's trailer park comment for the moment, you are referring exactly to what I am getting at. My question is not necessarily whether or not 0!=1 is correct, but rather whether or not a mathematical system that we have devised requiring 0!=1 to be correct is a system we should be using in the first place.
The reason that the reasons given so far seem unnatural to some posters is because they don't properly understand that mathematics is currently founded upon functions mapping sets to sets - rather than formulae containing numbers and letters.
Originally posted by SPMarsAgain, just because it's convenient to define something, it doesn't necessarily make it right.
I don't think any professional mathematicians spend any time worrying why 0!=1. It is *defined* that way, (motivation for definition: convenience). End of story. It doesn't matter *why*, strictly speaking, it is a *definition*. You could equally well define it to be 258732057, but that would be very silly.
The reasons why 0!=1 happens to be convenient
Mathematics is not about these kinds of issues. It is much more intricate and substantial.
Originally posted by uzlessYou remind me of someone I used to call "The Master Of The Empty Set".
Again, just because it's convenient to define something, it doesn't necessarily make it right.
You say it doesn't matter *why* because it's a *definition*...why do you take this definition on face value? Just because we are taught it's a definition and therefore irrefutable?
Is it possible this definition is wrong? Is there a way to test this definiti ...[text shortened]... axioms than our current number system. Kind of like QWERTY keyboards vs Dvorak. 😉
Originally posted by ThudanBlunder0^0
Originally posted by SPMars
[b]You remind me of someone I used to call "The Master Of The Empty Set".
😉
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Er...no, as you can see on the left, that is definitely me.
Hey uzless, what about 0^0?[/b]