Can a human do what a computer cannot? For example dividing by zero. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you try to get a computer to divide by zero, you usually get this message on the screen: "Congratulations, you are the 1100111th customer to attempt division by zero! This computer will now self destruct as a token of our sincerity."
I agree sideshowbob. A computer equates infinity: it hangs. This is why computers are programmed with an error message displaying the computer cannot compute such a calculation. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However I would argue: (((x+1)/(0+1))-1)=x exactly the same as: +0 *0 -0 Zero does not exist. There is nothing there to calculate with...
In a BBC english TV program called QI (recommend viewing) the panel was asked ' Is zero a odd or even number? ' The answer is given as ' even ' Because it lies between two ones -1 and 1 Go figure Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's the answer I would have given. It's also even because it leaves no remainder when divided by 2.
...but what of +0 or -0 They exist! For example 1+0, 1-0. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Do they? + and - designate on which side of 0 a number is found. 0 is not found on either side, so it would seem that +0 and -0 are undefined. In the expressions 1+0 and 1-0, the + and - are operators, not signs.
Everyone here knows exactly what proportion means. If two triangles of different sizes are similar, and each side of one of the triangles is twice as long as the other, then you can relate them via direct proportion, right? Proportional math requires division. There's no other way to express a proportional relationship. Now consider the propostion of representing a proportional relationship between a triangle you can see and an ideal point. You can't do that, can you? Why not? It's nonsensical, that's why. A point is not a triangle. That's also what I mean when I say it's more than just "silly" to suppose that time itself is proportional to the speed of light. This leads to paradoxes like time stops for a photon traveling at the speed of light. It most certainly does not. If it is circularly polarized, the EM vectors keep rotating, don't they? You bet the do. They couldn't do that if time itself was stopped for a photon, could they? Of course not. The reason our reasoning about time makes no sense in relativity is because Minkowsi decided that time was proportional to the speed of light. Well, it isn't. An instant of time is neither proportional to a velocity, the velocity of light, nor can an instant of time be proportional to a time interval; ANY time interval. This is utter nonsense because, like the proportional triangle example above, it is dividing by zero. And this calculation has in fact caused the math associated with relativity and physics all kinds of problems, as well as many conceptually insurmountable paradoxes, one of which I have already related. If this error is removed, then quantum entanglement becomes possible within the conceptual framework of relativity. The Law of Conservation of Mass / Energy, and inertia's relationship to time is also restored. As far as I can see, there is no downside. But if you don't belive this, by all means, keep dividing by zero and tell yourselves it makes perfect proportional sense. So, the answer to the OP isn't "not a number". The full answer is: proportional math does not support division by zero, and whenever you encounter it, it most likely means you are attempting to compare things mathematically that do NOT compare in a proportional construct or context, whether or not what you are trying to calculate something that is physically meaningful or not.
My 3 neurones must have disobeyed me and all went to sleep at the same time You can not divide 0 by 2 There are no 2s within 0 Danger Will Robinson The same as there are no 0s within 2 Hello - it's a 2 (it would be the same with any number in place of 2) Double danger Will Only number divisible by 0 is 0 And it goes once Here endith my complete understanding of maths Anyone think there is a book in it? Uncharted space Will Robinson Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Division by zero only makes you a hero To gullible fools with proportional tools Who think math with infinity makes you close to divinity And 2=1, only in their vicinity
I am a hero who divided zero by zero My proportional tools made others the fools And the answer of one is second to none And my divinity goes on to infinity with no-one in my vicinity PS My bum is now numb Since 2=1 (about the size of a plumb) Came out of my bum With a thunderous hum Apologies to all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sure I can. I have zero money and I give you half. On the contrary, there is a zero within every number: 1 + 0, 2 + 0, 3 + 0.... It's just quicker to write it without the zero. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Put a 2 in front of 6 of the zero money's you have and I'll take the 1 million no problem Looks like to me your cheating Your adding the 0 first (+) Naughty naughty Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
0 + 0 = 0 - 0 = 0 => +0 = -0 = 0 Which implies that zero is the only integer whose additive inverse is itself. (i.e. +1 ≠ -1, . . . )