Certainly there are more issues than just the surface level you acknowledge - beyond just the fact that ∫∞ t=0 t f(t) dt ∫ t = 0 ∞ t f (t) d t $ \int _ t=0 ^ \mathrm \infty t\text f(t)\text dt$ is meaningless in general, the way you bring in the integral ∫∞ t=0 t dF(t) ∫ t = 0 ∞ t d F (t) $ \int _ t=0 ^ \mathrm \infty t\text dF(t)$ (which, by the way, I still don't. Pretend K=3 That means (K+1)= 4 This means you'd be dividing 3*2*1 by 4*3*2*1. Consider how you'd cancel out multiples by dividing them. Like how (2 (5+x))/2 would just equal 5+x. Following that idea we'd pretty much be able to cancel out every number in the numerator, so long as its also in the denominator. This would end up canceling every number except for 4 which equals (K+1). Essentially. More accurately sin x∼0 x sin ⁡ x ∼ 0 x $\mathrm sin x \sim _ 0 x$ (in the sense of equivalence of functions near 0 0 $0$). f′(x) = 1 1 + x − 1 = −x 1 + x 0, for x 0 f (x) = 1 1 + x 1 = x 1 + x 0, for x 0 $ f ^ \prime (x)= \displaystyle \frac 1 1+x -1= \displaystyle \frac -x 1+x 0,\text for x 0$. How are $C^0,C^1$ norms defined? I know $L_p,L_\infty$ norms but are the former defined. $1$ square is $1$, so is raised $1$ to $123434234$. My maths teacher claims that $1$ raised to infinity is not $1$, but not defined. Is there any reason for this? I know that any number raised to Why is 1/i 1 / i $1/i$ equal to −i i $-i$? Ask Question Asked 11 years, 6 months ago Modified 1 year, 10 months ago Viewed 118k times 67 知乎，中文互联网高质量的问答社区和创作者聚集的原创内容平台，于 2011 年 1 月正式上线，以「让人们更好的分享知识、经验和见解，找到自己的解答」为品牌使命。 把 里面的“/” 理解为将投注额平分。 比如你打算投注10块的让0.5/1， 就是5块买 让0.5 剩下5块买让1 如果让球方净胜1球，那么让0.5的5块你赢了，让1的5块不输不赢，总的就赢一半 如果让球方净胜2球及以上，那么让0.5的赢了，让1的也赢了，总的就全赢 如果平局或者让球方输球，那么让0.5的输了，让1. Expectation on 1/X Ask Question Asked 13 years, 11 months ago Modified 4 years, 9 months ago.