The zero(0) and zero factorial (0!)

I have felt many Indian intellectuals involving in zero(0) and zero factorial (0!). These intellectuals feel they are zero(0), as they have absence of ego. But the same gentlemen take decisions and actions of zero factorial (0!). Top decisions and top actions. Number 1 decisions and Number 1 actions. 

These intellectuals fail to realize that the zero (0) is of the ruler or scale. Not their internals.

I have been busy with n!, 2n!, ((n+1)(n+2))/2 thoughts and expressions.  All these expressions start from 1. There is no zero(0). I suggest Indian intellectuals to take advantage of these expressions and develop models of thought.  I feel the results are fascinating and good. I have a e to the power of x and log(x) type of equivalent expressions.  Yes, my expressions seem good to me and there is scope of something big. But I need help and guidance and cooperation from Professors. Because the concept may be tough.

You may recall my binomial start from 1 and there are decent expressions. 

Only thing is I need help from Indian mathematicians.  

Let us forget zero(0) and zero factorial (0!). Let us work with 1. Let us remove confusion.

Google blog friends, if possible help me with a group of mathematical intellectuals.  If I can join them, I shall be grateful and thankful.

This is what I meant.

Hope you understood the approximate equivalence (in my case) to the similar e and log relations.

If you want clarifications, do comment below.

It works.

Sigma of (((((n+1)(n+2))/2)^n)/((2n)!)*(1/x)^n, summed up from 0 to infinity equals approximately (4.666)^(1/x). Also sum of ((1/x)^n)/(n(n+1) alternately negated, from 1 to infinity gives (n+1)*ln((n+1)/n)-1. Substituting n as 4.666, 4.666 *2, 4.666*3 . . .  gives 0.1, 0.1/2, 0.1/3, .....

Please confirm. It seems amazing. The results. 

The results are approximate. 

Here are some more details

The results are approximate.  But fascinating.  Thank you, my Lord, Jesus Christ. 

I have typed in MS Word the relevant formulas.

I propose multiplying the LHS of third expression in the just above image by (4.666/5) to get better 0.1/n (RHS) accuracy.

Apart from that I do not recommend any more changes. No changes of 4.66 factor. Also I don't want to invest my mind in exploring the why's of (4.666)^(1/y).

I believe God wants it this way.

For very large values the results are inconsistent.  This is because of string theory.

See below the inconsistent result.

Remember the famous

1+2+3+4+.............. =-1/12. Yes. String theory. 

I believe it comes negated because of Jesus Christ and Anno Domini time. Mental faculties can't work to this level. But Jesus Christ and his time and the inventions by his followers like pen, paper, calculator makes seeing this phenomenon.