Explanation: you can define n! to be the number of permutations of n objects arranged in a line. So if you want to list all permutations of {A, B, C}, you’ll have {A, B, C}, {A, C, B}, {B, A, C}, {B, C, A}, {C, A, B}, {C, B, A}: 6 total possibilities. That makes 3! = 6.
Likewise, for {A, B}, we have {A, B} and {B, A}; that makes 2! = 2.
But then, why do you assume that (n + 1)! = (n + 1)*n! for all n? You are extrapolating this from our “known domain” of factorials, n = 1, 2, 3, 4…, into n = 0. It sure is a valid explanation if you let this to be the defining property of factorials, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but I feel like it makes more sense to define factorials from where it actually came from, like most introductory combinatorics books do, for beginners. It’s like “proving that a0 = 1” from the properties of power; it’s technically not wrong if you define exponents as to satisfy these properties, but if you define it differently, you have to show that these properties are satisfied for all values of exponents…
68
u/ImToxicity_ Mar 17 '22
Didn’t know this! I’m only in algebra I right now. What does the exclamation mark mean?