International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)

ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-2, Issue-9, September 2015

On the Exact Quotient of the

Division by Zero 1/0
Dr. Okoh Ufuoma

AbstractThis paper aims to present the solution to the most

first to use the famed symbol for infinity in

mathematics [34]. In his 1655 Arithmetica Infinitorum,
he asserted that

significant problem in all of analysis, namely, the problem of

assigning a precise quotient for the division by zero, /0. It is
universally acknowledged that if and are two integers
where 0, the fraction / , when evaluated, gives rise to
only one rational quotient. But, here in analysis, at least three
quotients have been assigned to the fraction /0 by various
departments of analysis. Moreover, so much hot debate has
emerged from the discussion which has arisen from this subject.
It is, therefore, the purpose of this paper to furnish the exact
quotient for the special and most significant case of division by
zero, the fraction 1/0.

<

1 1 1 1
1
< < < <
<
3 2 1 0 (1)

where he considered fractions of the form 1/()

greater than the infinite quantity 1/0. Leonhard Euler,
one of the most prolific mathematicians of all times,
demonstrated that and 0 are multiplicative inverses
of each other. We read this genius in his excellent book
Elements of Algebra [14]:

Index Termszero, infinity, Euler constant, division by zero,

minus one factorial.

The fraction 1/ represents the quotient

resulting from the division of the dividend 1 by
the divisor . We know that if we divide 1 by the
quotient 1/ which is equal to nothing, we
obtain again the divisor . Hence we acquire a
new idea of infinity and learn that it arises from
the division of 1 by 0 so that we are thence
authorized in saying that 1 divided by 0
expresses a number infinitely great or .

I. INTRODUCTION

A most fundamental and significant problem of

mathematics for centuries wholly obscured by its
complications is that of giving meaning to the division
of a finite quantity by zero. It is easily seen that + 0 =
, 0 = , and 0 = 0. But, when it is required
to evaluate 0, a great difficulty arises as there is no
assignable quotient [40].
Various noble efforts have indeed been made to
assign a precise quotient for 0 and some have
proved to be stepping stones. The Indian mathematician
Brahmagupta (born 598) appeared to be the first to
attempt a definition for 0 [38]. In his
Brahmasphula-siddhanta, he spoke of 0 as being
the fraction /0 . Read this great mathematician:
Positive or negative numbers when divided by zero is a
fraction with the zero as denominator [38]. He seemed
to have believed that /0 is irreducible. In 1152,
another ingenious Indian mathematician Bhaskara II
improved on Brahmaguptas notion of division of a
finite by zero, calling the fraction /0 an infinite
quantity. In his Bijaganita he remarked: A quantity
divided by zero becomes a fraction the denominator of
which is zero. This fraction is termed an infinite
quantity[39].
The illustrious English mathematician at Oxford
John Wallis introduced the form 1/0 = , being the

II. ON THE ACTUAL INFINITE (1)!

One product of numbers which occurs so frequently in

applications is the factorial. For any positive integer ,
the product of all positive integers from 1 up through
is called factorial, and is denoted by the factorial
function !. The factorial function is so familiar and
well known to all that many will regard its repetition
quite superfluous. Still I regard its discussion as
indispensable to prepare properly for the main question.
For the way in which we define the factorial function is
based directly upon only the positive integers [8], [34].
The factorial function, we say, is
! = 1 2 3 ( 1) .

(2.1)

The first few factorials are

Okoh Ufuoma, Department of Mathematics, Apex Academy, Uwheru,

Delta State,
Nigeria. +2348134813234., ([email protected],
[email protected] ).
.

www.ijeas.org

On the Exact Quotient of the Division by Zero 1/0

1! = 1,
2! = 1 2,
3! = 1 2 3,
4! = 1 2 3 4.

The result which arises from the factorials of positive

integers are all positive integers; for 1! = 1, 2! =
2, 3! = 6, 4! = 24, 5! = 120 and so on to infinity [25].
We now come to the chief question about the
factorial: What is (1)!? It will be useful to begin
answering this question by considering the factorial
function. Multiplying both sides of eq. (2.1) by
( + 1) gives

refer to only nonzero numbers less than any finite

positive numbers!)
Having seen that (1)! is the quotient arising from
1/0, we now inquire into the numerical value that will
arise from the evaluation of (1)!. The value of 0! is
always taken to be, as a convention, unity. This fact,
which we have proved to be true using the
aforementioned recurrence relation (2.2) for the
factorial, may also be obtained by numerical analysis.
For if we use the computer to compute the values of the
factorials of 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, whose limit is 0, we
shall obtain the data given in Table 1 below.
Table 1.Values of ! for

0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001

( + 1) ! = 1 2 3 ( 1) ( + 1)
= ( + 1)!.
Thus, we obtain the recurrence formula for the factorial:
! =

( + 1)!
.
+1

(2.2)

Letting = 3, 2, 1, 0, and 1, we get the following

pattern of numbers [8], [34]:
3! =

4!
,
4

2! =

3!
,
3

.
The figures in the second column of this table approach
unity as 0. We may conclude from this that 0! =
1.
An understanding of this fact prepares us for the
assigning of a numerical value for the infinite (1)!.
We can continue to use our numerical method of
reasoning. The starting point is the computation of the
factorials of 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, whose limit is
1.The results from our computer are put in Table 2
below.
Table 2.Values of ! for

2!
1! =
,
2
0! =

1!
,
1

(1)! =

0!
.
0

From this pattern of numbers, it is evident that 0! = 1

and (1)! = 1/0. What a picture we have here of
(1)! ! It is the quotient which arises from the division
of unity by the absolute zero.
Every artifice of ingenuity may be employed to blunt
the sharp edge of this identity (1)! = 1/0 and to
explain away the obvious meaning of 1/0. Here we
learn at least three things. First, that (1)! is the
multiplicative inverse or reciprocal of 0. Second, that
the product 0 (1)! = 1. Third, that the infinitesimal
1/(1)! equals the absolute zero 0. (How concisely do
this identity dispose of the sophistries and
equivocations of all who would make infinitesimals

!
0.9513507698668731
0.99432585119150603
0.99942377248459546
0.99994228832316241

0.9
0.99
0.999
0.9999

!
10 0.951350769866
100 0.994325851191
1000 0.999423772484
10000 0.999942288323

The figures in the second column of this table approach

1000 as 1. Our new conclusion is then
(1)! = 1000 .
It should be noted that the number of zeros in 1000
equals the number of nines in 0.999 . Had we world
enough and time, we would write down all the zeros in
this actual infinite 1000 .
The majority of my readers will be very much
amazed in learning that by writing
(1)! = 1000

www.ijeas.org

International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)

ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-2, Issue-9, September 2015

the secret of infinity is to be revealed. To this I may say

I am pleased if everybody finds the above result so
obvious. It is a clear path which leads to this conclusion.
We cannot show here how abundant and fruitful the
consequences of this conclusion have proved. Its
applications lead to simple, convincing and intuitive
explanations of facts previously incoherent and
misunderstood.
It is expedient that we give a glimpse of the
arithmetic of infinity here that we may see the greatness
of the utility of the infinite 1000 . When an integer,
say , is divided by the absolute zero, the quotient is
expressed as

entertain any doubt concerning all he has been

instructed of here. It is claimed that the tangent of 90
is undefined or meaningless and so cannot be assigned
any numerical value. But we shall show straight away
that this is not the case. Suppose we wish to find
lim tan . We construct Table 3 of values of tan as
90

90.
Table 3.Values of for

89.9
89.99
89.999

1
= = (1)! = 1000 .
0
0

tan
57.29572134 10
57.29577893 100
57.29577951 1000

On the basis of the information provided in the table, we

say that as 90

Setting = 1, 2, 3, , we get
1
= 1 1000 = 1000
0

lim tan = 57.295779513082 1000

90

2
= 2 1000 = 2000
0

which, with the understanding that

3
= 3 1000 = 3000
0

becomes

57.295779513082 =
lim tan =

90

and so on. It follows from these that the creation of a

precise and consistent arithmetic of infinity may be
possible; for it is now very clear that

180
,

180
1000

We may be filled with joy to confirm this result by

taking another pathway. Familiar to us is the identity
sin
tan =
cos

1 2
+ = 1000 + 2000
0 0
= 3000

which, setting = 90, becomes

sin 90
tan 90 =
.
cos 90

2 3
= 2000 3000
0 0
= 1000

To find tan 90 is equivalent to finding the ratio of

sin 90 to cos 90. It is easily seen that sin 90 = 1,
but it will shock the reader to learn here that cos 90
0. We begin by constructing Table 4 of values of cos
for 90.

3 2
= 3000 2000
0 0
= 6 (1000 )2
1 2
= 1000 2000
0 0
1000 1
=
=
2000 2

Table 4.Values of for

89.9
89.99
89.999

and so on.We might give examples of all the common

rules of arithmetic that pertain to finite numbers and
show how they may be carried out by infinite numbers
and also how they may be performed by easy operations
with computers and calculators, but as this may be very
elaborate we omit them in the interest of brevity.
I close this section with an interesting application of
the result 1/1000 = 0 so that the reader may not

cos
0.0174532836 /10
0.0174532924 /100
0.0174532925 /1000

On the basis of the information provided in the table, we

say that as 90
lim cos =

90

0.0174532925199
1000

www.ijeas.org

On the Exact Quotient of the Division by Zero 1/0

which, understanding that

tan
.
90
2
tan (
)
90
lim

0.0174532925199 =
180
and 1/0 = 1000 , becomes
lim cos =

90

/180

=
0.
1000 180

Thus, the value of tan 90 is

1
180
tan 90 =
=
0
180 0

To find the value of this limit, it is necessary to apply L

Hopitals Rule since the evaluation of this limit gives
rise to the indeterminate form /. But if we apply the
infinite values already computed for the limits of both
the numerator and denominator of the limit in question,
we obtain
lim tan
tan
90
lim
=
90
2
2
tan (90)
lim tan (90)
90

which, setting 1/0 = 1000 , becomes our required

result
tan 90 =

180
1000 .

I must apprise the reader here that the numerical value

of the tangent of 90 varies with the value of the
variable associated with the angle under consideration.
As a way of an illustration of what we have just said, let
us find the limit
2
lim tan (
).
90
90
We construct Table 5 of values of tan( 2 /90) for
values of 90.

57.295779513082 1000
28.6478897565 1000

=2
or
180
tan
1000 = 2.
lim
=
90
90
2
1000
tan (
)

90
The reader acquainted with L Hopitals Rule may
check the exactness of the result above. There are many
more results that may present themselves here and
which it would require volumes to illustrate. But, as our
plan requires great brevity, we shall be obliged to omit
them.
III. GUARANTEEING THE VALIDITY OF 1/0 = (1)!

Table 5. Values of ( /)

89.9
89.99
89.999

tan( 2 /90)
28.66369780 10
28.64948023 100
28.64804890 1000

From the information provided in the above table, we

say that as 90
lim tan (

90

2
) = 28.6478897565 1000 .
90

The numerical value 28.6478897565 is without

doubt equal to 90/. Therefore, we write

Assigning a quotient for 1/0 had for a long time

engaged the wisdom and knowledge of mathematicians,
philosophers, and theologians, and the scholarly had
concluded that such a fraction is meaningless or
undefined. Moreover, attempts have been made to
prove that the quotient of 1/0 is not an infinite quantity,
but these attempts so clearly do violence to analysis that
I will not waste time in vindicating the result 1/0 =
(1)!.
One constant with which 1/0 is so much associated
is the famed constant called Eulers constant. This
constant was first introduced into mathematics by Euler
in his enchanting paper entitled De progressionibus
harmonis observationes (1734/5) [11]. There Euler
defined the constant in a commendable manner as
1 1 1
1
= lim (1 + + + + + ln( + 1)) ,

2 3 4

2
90
lim tan (
1000 .
)=
90
90

That the reader may be more assured of what he has

been studying, I present before him the problem of
finding the limit

and computed its arithmetical value to 6 decimal places

as [23]
= 0.577218.
.

www.ijeas.org

International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)

ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-2, Issue-9, September 2015

Now, the starting place of this constant goes back to

a difficult problem in analysis, that of finding the exact
sum of the infinite series [1], [6], [7], [20]
1+

+
( ln (
)) = + ln(!).

=1

Setting = 1, we obtain

1
1
+ 2 + .
2
2
3

1
1 +
(
ln (
)) = + ln(1)!

This problem which was first posed by Mengoli in 1650

drilled the minds of many top mathematicians [5] until
1734 when Euler showed that the sum of the series is
2 /6. It was while he was attempting to assign a sum to
the famous harmonic series

=1

which becomes

1
1
( + ln (
)) = ln(1)!.

1
1 1
= 1 + + +

2 3

=1

=1

This result may be expressed as

that he discovered his constant and denoted it with the

letter , stating that it was worthy of serious
consideration [9], [10], [15], [16], [18], [34].
Let us now use 1/0 = (1)! in the derivation of the
definition of Eulers constant in order to guarantee that
the result 1/0 = (1)! is true. We begin with the
familiar relation [24], [36]

=1

=1

1
1
+ ln (
) = ln(1)!

which gives us

=1

=2

1
11
1
+ ln (
) + ln (
) = ln(1)!

= + ln(!)
0

where is the th harmonic number. Noting that [36]

which in its turn gives

=1

=2

1
0
1
+ ln ( ) + ln (
) = ln(1)!

=
( + )
=1

we write

=1

0
1

1
0

which, setting ln ( ) = ln ( ), furnishes

= + ln(!)
( + )

=1

=2

1
1
1
ln ( ) + ln (
) = ln(1)!.

which, resolving /( + ) into partial fractions,

becomes

This result, applying our inspirational identity 1/0 =

(1)!, is equivalent to

1
1
(
) = + ln(!)
+
0

=1

=2

1
1
ln(1)! + ln (
) = ln(1)!

=1

which becomes

which ultimately becomes

1
1
(
) = + ln(!).
+
0

=1

=2

1
1
+ ln (
) = .

=1

This, evaluating 0 ( +) , simplifies into

Now the sum

www.ijeas.org

On the Exact Quotient of the Division by Zero 1/0

ln (
=2

1
1
2
3
) = lim (ln ( ) + ln ( ) + ln ( ) +

2
3
4
2
1
+ ln (
) + ln (
))
1

Let us now turn to the derivation of a formula in

analysis in order to give the reader an idea of the flavor
of

1
ln(1)! = .

=1

1
= lim (ln ( ))

There is a very interesting formula discovered by Euler

in his 1776 paper [12], which presents a beautiful
means of computing . This formula, which reappeared
in several subsequent works by many mathematicians
of eminence such as Glaisher [16], Johnson [19],
Bromwich [6], Srivastava [30], and Lagarias [21] is

= lim (ln ).

Similarly, the sum

1
1 1
1
= lim (1 + + + + ) .

2 3

1 =
=2

=1

Taking these as essential steps, we obtain

1 1 1
1
lim (1 + + + + + ln()) =
2 3 4

which is Eulers original definition of .

Let us now give a splendid illustration of the way in
which the identity 1/0 = (1)! may be used in
analysis. Our aim at this point is to demonstrate that
ln(1)! is the sum of the harmonic series. The
possibility of such a result is suggested by inspecting
the Taylor series expansion [2], [3], [4], [13], [22], [37]
2

ln (

(() 1)
.

We now proceed to derive this formula which has

fascinated the industry of such a great number of
mathematicians and we begin with the familiar
Maclaurin series expansion of the natural logarithm of
!

()
ln()! = + (1)
,
|| < 1.

=2

We shall here violate the proviso that || < 1; for if

we let = 1 so that || = 1, an encroachment of the
stipulation || < 1, then we obtain the result

ln(1)! = +

) = +
+
+ ,
1
2
3

=2

()
.

and letting = 1. Accomplishing these, we obtain the

following [27], [28]:

Setting ln(1)! =
=1 , we obtain

=2

=2

=2

1
()
1+
=

which in turn furnishes our required formula

=1

Many other proofs might be given to show that ln(1)!

is actually the sum of the harmonic series, but this is so
explicit that we have thought proper not to enlarge
because we cannot possibly do justice to the great
subject involved.

=1

which results in

Employing the identity 1/0 = (1)!, we arrived at the

required result
1
1
1
ln(1)! = 1 + + + = .
2
3

1
()
= +

1
12
13
ln (
)= 1+
+
+ ,
11
2
3
1
1
1
ln ( ) = 1 + + + .
0
2
3

1 =
=2

(() 1)
.

To be more fully convinced of the fact that ln(1)!

is the sum of the harmonic series, we employ it again in
the derivation of this same formula by taking another
lane. We begin with the familiar identity [36]

www.ijeas.org

International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)

ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-2, Issue-9, September 2015

= (1)+1 ( + 1)

1 =

=1

=2

and integrate both sides of it with respect to , that is,

we find

Therefore, it remains for us to remove any doubt

which may be entertained concerning the utility of the
logarithmic infinity ln(1)! , for this number being
infinite, it would not be surprising if anyone should
think it entirely meaningless and useless. This however
is not the case. The computation involving the
logarithmic infinity is of the greatest importance. When
the ubiquitous harmonic series appears in any
calculation or formula, we are certain that its sum is the
logarithmic infinity ln(1)!.
It may not be amiss to show in this work whether or
not is irrational. To prove or disprove the irrationality
of has acquired extraordinary celebrity from the fact
that no correct proof has been given, but there is no
reason to doubt that it is possible. We shall, therefore,
pursue here the proof of the irrationality of . We begin
with the mystery of in which Euler has beautifully
mingled the harmonic series with the natural logarithm,
that is the excellent relation

= (1)+1 ( + 1)
0

=1

where is the th harmonic number. We apply the

aforementioned familiar relation [36]

= + ln(!)
0

and get

+ ln(!) = (1)+1 ( + 1)
0

=1

(() 1)
.

1 1
1
= lim (1 + + + + ln( + 1)).

2 3

which becomes

+ ln(!) = (1)+1 ( + 1)
=1

+1
.
+1

In the language of the Nonstandard Analysis invented

by the grand American logician Abraham Robinson of
Yale University, let be the infinite positive integer
for which
1 1 1
1
1 1 1
1 + + + + + = 1 + + + +
2 3 4

2 3 4

Let us now set = 1. We obtain

+ ln(1)! =
=1

(3.1)

( + 1)
+1

= ln(1)!.

which furnishes

We rewrite (3.1) as

= ln(1)!
=1

( + 1)
.
+1

1 1 1
1
= lim (1 + + + + + ln( + 1))

2 3 4

or

We set = 1 and get

= ln(1)!
=2

1 1 1
1
= 1 + + + + + ln( + 1)
2 3 4

()
.

which becomes
= ln(1)! ln( + 1)

Finally, setting ln(1)! =

=1 , we obtain

=
=1

which simplifies to
= ln (

1
()

(1)!
)
+1

which, in its own turn, after finding the natural

exponential of both sides, furnishes the nice result

=2

which, taking an easily construed step, becomes our

proposed formula:

(1)!
.
+1

www.ijeas.org

On the Exact Quotient of the Division by Zero 1/0

Rearranging this as

1
=
,
(1)! + 1

and noting that 1/(1)! = 0, we obtain

1
0 =
.
+1
1
Now, by the renowned transfer principle, +1 is a
rational number as it is the ratio of two integers, the
finite integer 1 and the infinite integer + 1 .
1
Therefore, it follows that 0 to which +1 is equal
is rational. Since the integer 0 is rational, it is evident
that, for 0 to be rational, must be rational.
In the excellent book An Introduction to the Theory
of Numbers [17] the Great Britains professional
mathematicians, G. H. Hardy and E. M. Wright, show
that is irrational for every rational 0, a result
first reached by Lambert [16], [26], [28], [32], [33],
[35]. To cite the proof is too great a work for us. We
will, however, cite the words of one of the most eminent
mathematics historians, F. Cajori:
In 1761 Lambert communicated to the Berlin
Academy a memoir (published 1768), in which
he proves rigorously that is irrational. It is
given in simplified form in Note IV of A. M.,
Legendre's Geometric, where the proof is
extended to 2 . Lambert proved that if is
rational, but not zero, then neither nor
can be a rational number; since
(/4) = 1, it follows that /4 or cannot
be rational.
If, therefore, 0 were rational, then would be
irrational, a contradiction, since as we have seen, is
rational. Thus is an irrational number, incapable of
being written as a ratio of two integers.
Let us inquire into the value of + 1 . If we
re-express
=

Thus the numerical value of + 1 is

5614594835668851698241432147
an infinite integer less than 1000 . The number of
digits in the number
5614594835668851698241432147
equals the number of zeros in 1000 .
We close this paper by inquiring whether the use of
the word undefined for the expression 1/0 is proper.
We have already agreed that + 1 is an actual infinite
number. Therefore, no one will have any difficulty in
comprehending that 2( + 1), 3( + 1), 4( + 1),
are also infinite numbers. Moreover, it is very clear that
( + 1) is an infinite number between + 1 and
2( + 1) since is a real number 1.78107241799019
79852365041031071795491696 between 1 and 2. If
we admit that ( + 1) is actually a number, though
infinite, I do not see how 1/0 may be meaningless or
undefined. For if we begin again with
=
rewrite it as
( + 1) = (1)!
and set (1)! = 1/0, we obtain the shocking result
1
( + 1) = .
0
But we have said before that ( + 1) is an infinite
number. Therefore, 1/0 which the mathematical
community has hitherto termed undefined is actually a
number and is infinite. What a glorious subject is now
presented to our view! But we must leave it, for our
limits remind us that we must be brief.

(1)!
+1

as
+ 1 = (1)!
and noting that
= 0.5614594835668851698241
and (1)! = 1000 as it was pointed out in Section
2, we have
+ 1 = 0.5614594835668851698241 1000
= 5614594835668851698241 .

(1)!
,
+1

IV. CONCLUSION

This paper discussed the problem of assigning a

quotient for the division of unity by zero. The symbol
0 which we call zero was demonstrated to have a single
multiplicative inverse, the infinite number (1)!. It was
also demonstrated that this infinite number has a
numerical value of 1000 , indicating that infinite
numbers are assignable numbers. The entire work was
closed with an infallible application of 1/0 = (1)! in
a birth place of infinity, the Euler constant.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I wish to thank all those who have so kindly helped

me with the preparation of this paper, in particular:

www.ijeas.org

International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences (IJEAS)

ISSN: 2394-3661, Volume-2, Issue-9, September 2015
[29] J. Stewart, Calculus, Thomeson Brooks/cole, USA, 5th ed.
[30] H. Srivastava, Sums of Certain Series of the Riemann Zeta Function,
Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications134,
129--140(1988).
[31] H. Srivastava, J. Choi, Evaluation of Higher-order Derivatives of the
Gamma Function, Univ. Beograd. Publ. Elektrotehn. Fak. Ser. Mat. 11
(2000), 918.
[32] R. Steinberg, R. Redheffer, Analytical Proof of the Lindemann
Theorem, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 1952 Vol. 2, No. 2,
Available: http://msp.org/pjm/1952/2-2/pjm-v2-n2-p11-s.pdf..
[33] J. von Soldner, Theorie et tables dune nouvelle fonction
transcendante, Munchen: Lindauer 1809[2.6].
[34] U. Okoh, Eulers Constant: New Insights by Means of Minus One
Factorial, (Periodical style), Proc. WCE 2014.
[35] Wikipedia, Transcendental Numbers/ en. Wikipedia.
Org/wiki/Transcendental numbers.
[36] Wikipedia, Harmonic Numbers/en. Wikipedia. Org/ wiki/ Harmonic
numbers.
[37] Analysis, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica Student
and Home Edition. Chicago; 2012
[38] Wikipedia, Brahmagupta/ en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/ Brahmagupta.
[39] Wikipedia, Bhaskara II/ en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/ Bhaskara II.
[40] Wikipedia, zero/ en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/ zero.

Engr. Agun Ikhile Ohiozoje (Natony Nigeria Limited)

for his great financial assistance and mighty
suggestions, and Engr. Godday Okoh (NNPC) for his
generosity.
REFERENCES
[1]

R. Ayoub, Euler and the Zeta Function, Amer. Math. Monthly, Vol. 81,
No. 10 (Dec., 1974), pp. 1067-1086..

[2]

F. Ayres, Mendelson E., Calculus , The McGraw --HillCompanies,

New York, 2009, 928-- 437.3.
J. Bayma, Elements of Infinitesimal Calculus, A Waldteufel, San
Francisco, 1889.
E. Barbeau, P. Leah, Eulers 1760 Paper on Divergent Series,
3 (1976), 141-160.
J. Bernoulli, Ars Conjectandi, opus posthumum, Accedit Tractatus de
seriebus infinitis, et Epistola Gallic`e scripta De ludo pilae reticularis,
Basilae Impensis Thurnisiorum, Fratrum, 1713 [Basel 1713].
T. Bromwich, An Introduction to the Theory of Infinite Series, 2nd
ed., Macmillan & Co., London, 1926.
D. Bushaw, C. Saunders, The Third Constant, Nofthwest Science, Vol.
59, No. 2, 198
E. Egbe, G. Odili, O Ugbebor, Further Mathematics, Africana-First
Publishers Limited.
L. Euler, De summis serierum numeros Bernoullianos involventinum,
Novi Comment. acad. sci.Petrop. 14 (1770), 129167.
L. Euler., De curva hypegeometrica hac aequatione expressa y =
123 }, Novi Comentarii Acad.Sci. Petrop. 13 (1769), 366.
L. Euler, De progressionibus harmonicis observationes, Comment.
acad sci. Petrop. 7 (1740), 150161.
L. Euler, De numero memorabili in summatione progressionis
harmonicae naturalis occurrente, Acta Acad. Scient. Imp. Petrop. 5
(1785), 4575.
L. Euler., Evolutio formulae integralis , Nova Acta Acad. Scient.
Imp. Petrop. 4 (1789), 316.
L. Euler., Element of Algebra, Translated from the French; with the
Notes of M. Bernoulli, and the Additions of M. De Grange, 3rd
Edition, Rev. John Hewlett, B.D.F.A.S., London, 1822.
W. Gautschi, Leonhard Euler: His Life, the Man, and His Works,
SIAM REVIEW 2008, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 333 Available:
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~krasny/gautschi-08.pdf.
J. Glaisher, History of Eulers constant, Messenger of Math., (1872),
vol. 1, p. 25-30.
G. Hardy, E. Wright, An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers, 4th
ed, Oxford University Press, London, 1975.
J. Havil, Gamma. Exploring Euler s Constant, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, NJ, 2003.
W. Johnson, Note on the numerical transcendents , Bull. Amer.
Math. Sot. 12 (1905-1906), 477-482.
V. Kowalenko, Euler and Divergent Series, European Journal of Pure
and Applied Mathematics, 2011 Vol. 4, No. 4, 370423.
J. Lagarias, Euler s Constant: Eulers Work and Modern
Developments, Bulletin (New Series) of the American Mathematical
Society, Volume 50, Number 4, October 2013, Pages 527--628,
Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1856,
http://www.ams.org/bull/2013-50-04/S0273-0979-2013-01423-X/.
R. Larson, R. Hostetler, B. Edwards, Calculus, Houghton Mifflin
Company, New York, 7th ed. 2002.
E. Motakis, V. Kuznetsov, Genome-Scale Identification of Survival
Significant Genes and Gene Pairs, Proceedings of the World Congress
on Engineering and Computer Science} 2009 Vol I, Available:
http://iaeng.org..
L. Rade, Westergren B., Mathematics Handbook for Science and
Engineering, Springer, New York, 2006, 5th ed.
K. Rosen, Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications, McGraw -Hill,Inc, New York, 1994,150 -- 167.
H. Schubert, Mathematical Essays and Recreations,1898, Available:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25387.
L. Silverman, On the Definition of the Sum of a Divergent Series,
University of Missouri Columbia, Missouri, April, 1913.
D. Smith, History of Modern Mathematics, Project Gutenberg, 4th
Edition, 1906. http://www.Gutenberg. org/ebooks/8746.

[3]
[4]
[5]

[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]

[13]
[14]

[15]

[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]

[22]
[23]

[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]

Okoh Ufuoma was born in

Ughelli, Delta State, Nigeria. He
was an undergraduate at the
Federal
University
of
Technology, Akure (FUTA),
Nigeria. After obtaining a B.Eng
in
Electrical/Electronic
Engineering
from
the
aforementioned university in
2007, he went into teaching
mathematics and physics in
various schools. He is currently the Head of Department of
Mathematics/science in Apex Academy, Uwheru, Delta
State, Nigeria.

www.ijeas.org