🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4xhXhPAc...@yendor.demon.co.uk>, Edward Edmondson
<Edw...@yendor.demon.co.uk> wrote:

: Jim Sarbeck <cjp...@batnet.com> wrote
: >(Simon Slavin) wrote:
: >(Peter Ceresole) wrote:
: > (Simon Slavin) wrote:
: >: > 
: >: > >Not 'invented' -- 'discovered' !  Discovered discovered discovered.
: >: > >                          DISCOVERED !
: >: > 
: >: > Do you think so?
: >: > 
: >: > The phenomena that maths is used to examine are discovered, surely, but
: >: > maths itself *is* invented.
: >: 
: >: We invented the fact that 2+2=4 ?  Or that e^(pi*i)=-1 ?  Don't be
: >: silly.  We figured them out (discovered them) by accident or research.
: >: Two trees plus two trees made four trees long before humans existed.
: >
: >
: >Etc.
: >
: >Could someone explain to me the natural phenomenon leading to the
: >discovery that zero factorial is equal to one (0! = 1)?
: >
: Its a natural product of the ways in which we can order things. Theres
: only one way to order nothing.

Well, I understand that two trees here and two tree there make four trees
here and there.

But if I hypothesize that in nature, there a way to  to order nothing
(0!=1), versus the null hypothesis that there is no way to order nothing
(0!=0), how will we set about testing the hypothesis?

Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*