Why does a lot of Maths...

You can't arrange 0 objects, because they're not there. It's like asking "how many different ways can you eat a burger that doesn't exist" and blatantly, you can't eat a burger that doesn't exist. Therefore your reasoning is saying that there is in fact 1 way of eating a non-existent burger, by not eating it. How stupid can you be xD.

I know it's a definition, I'm challenging the definition you tards. Can't just say "it is because it is" when there's no reasonable proof of it being true. "Proven" scientific theories have been disproven many times, and you seem unable to accept the fact that maybe something everyone believes can be wrong - despite it happening tons of times in the past. You can't arrange 0 objects, AND 0 X anything is supposed to be 0,unless that's wrong too. Therefore 0! can only logically be 0,yet because you've been simply told otherwise, you refuse to consider opposing views. This is why humans innovate so slowly, we all just believe what we're told.

I'm cringing at your stupidity.

The way you're meant to interpret "you can arrange 0 object in 1 way" is that there is only one bijective map from the empty set back into itself. If you had more than two brain cells to rub together you'd understand.

Thank you.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Explain 0! = 1 or -1 x 0 = infinity.... They make no sense, they're only "true" because they have to be or the other maths is wrong

Is there a mathematical proof? When I asked my teacher he just said "because it is".

Doesn't the fact that it's not there mean that there can be no way of arranging it? I don't understand how 1! and 0! can both equal 1.

Explain 0! = 1 or -1 x 0 = infinity.... They make no sense, they're only "true" because they have to be or the other maths is wrong

They're not true.

$-1 \times 0 = 0$, not infinity - you utter idiot.

Secondly, We have that $\displaystyle \Gamma(t) = \lim_{a \to \infty} \int_0^{a} x^{t-1}e^{-x} \, \mathrm{d}x$ and $n! = \Gamma(n+1)$.

Hence, $\displaystyle 0! = \Gamma(1) = \lim_{a \to \infty} \int_0^a e^{-x} \, \mathrm{d}x = 1$.

Another reason is that there is only one way to re-arrange the empty set.

n! is not defined as Gamma(n+1), it just happens to equal it, given that 0! =1

So what you have shown isn't a proof since we utilize 0! = 1 to prove the gamma relationship.

Being not there is a way that they are arranged

No, the nothingness IS the arrangement. Don't call others stupid when you're simply incorrect.
Then why have my Cambridge educated lecturers been using the fact that 0! = 1 all the time? It is a definition. Look it up. Try it on a calculator. Have you tried either?

Posted from TSR Mobile

But arranging nothingness is contradictory in our physical world. The very act of arranging something implies the existence of an object that is being arranged. I don't dispute the mathematical truth of !0 = 1, I merely dispute it as a physical truth.

I disagree.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Is there a mathematical proof? When I asked my teacher he just said "because it is".

Doesn't the fact that it's not there mean that there can be no way of arranging it? I don't understand how 1! and 0! can both equal 1.

What statement do you disagree with?

You can't arrange 0 objects, because they're not there. It's like asking "how many different ways can you eat a burger that doesn't exist" and blatantly, you can't eat a burger that doesn't exist. Therefore your reasoning is saying that there is in fact 1 way of eating a non-existent burger, by not eating it. How stupid can you be xD.

Arrangements upon an empty set are not contradictory.

It may be strange, or weird, but it is not contradictory.

Just as your bowl may contain one nut, or two nuts, or maybe zero nuts, a set can contain one element, or two elements, or maybe zero elements.

Now, we can name the nuts. Lets call them nut 1 and nut 2.

Bowl 1: {Nut 1,}
Bowl 2: {Nut 1, Nut 2}
Bowl 3; {}

Forgetting for a moment how many nuts there are in the bowls, how many ways may I count the nuts in them?

Bowl 1: I say "Nut 1" = 1
Bowl 2: I say "Nut 1, nut 2", OR I say "Nut 2, Nut 1" = 2
Bowl 3: I say "" (I say nothing).

If it were Bowl 4 having Nut 1, Nut 2 and Nut 3, I might say:
"Nut 1, Nut 2, Nut 3", OR
"Nut 2, Nut 1, Nut 3", OR
"Nut 3, Nut 2, Nut 1", OR
"Nut 2, Nut 3, Nut 1", OR
"Nut 2, Nut 1, Nut 3" OR
"Nut 1, Nut 3, Nut 2".

That's 6 in total, so we have 1, 2, 1, 6 for our 4 bowls.

Now, what's the earthly point of nattering on about nuts and bowls? Could we not abstract away the physical bowl and have instead collections, and rules for manipulating them, and abstract "nuts" into "elements"?

Yes we can. That is what mathematcians do.

In this abstraction, it makes no sense to say that the empty set is nothing, any more than it is sense to say that the bowl that contains no nuts is not a bowl.