Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Question

Post Closed as "Not suitable for this site" by Joseph Van Name, user43326, R W, Daniele Tampieri, Dave Benson
While this is on the front page anyway, the terminal comma in the title was driving me crazy. Hopefully this edit is OK.
Link
LSpice
LSpice
  • 12.9k
  • 4
  • 45
  • 69

The factorialfactorials of -1, -2, -3, …

improved formatting
Source Link
edit approved Mar 6, 2018 at 8:37
user121531
edit approved Mar 6, 2018 at 8:37
user121531

The factorial of -1, -2, -3, ...

Well, n!$n!$ is for integer n < 0$n < 0$ not defined --— as yet.

So the question is: How could a sensible generalization of the factorial for negative integers look like?

How could a sensible generalization of the factorial for negative integers look like?

Clearly a good generalization should have a clear combinatorial meaning which combines well with the nonnegative case.

The factorial of -1, -2, -3, ...

Well, n! is for integer n < 0 not defined -- as yet.

So the question is: How could a sensible generalization of the factorial for negative integers look like?

Clearly a good generalization should have a clear combinatorial meaning which combines well with the nonnegative case.

The factorial of -1, -2, -3,

Well, $n!$ is for integer $n < 0$ not defined — as yet.

So the question is:

How could a sensible generalization of the factorial for negative integers look like?

Clearly a good generalization should have a clear combinatorial meaning which combines well with the nonnegative case.

Question Protected by François G. Dorais
Source Link
Bruce Arnold
Bruce Arnold
  • 1.1k
  • 1
  • 9
  • 15

The factorial of -1, -2, -3, ...

Well, n! is for integer n < 0 not defined -- as yet.

So the question is: How could a sensible generalization of the factorial for negative integers look like?

Clearly a good generalization should have a clear combinatorial meaning which combines well with the nonnegative case.