0 divided 0 = ?

Stop crossposting and posting mathematical fallacies.

So far, the only thing you've posted about math that is true would be that of even numbers. An even number is in the form n=2k, and k is an integer.

Division by zero is undefined, 0/0 especially as n/0, where n is not zero, is complex infinity in the complex plane.

Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Possibly but zero divided by zero is ONE. Binary computing simply does not have the capablility to perform such an equation, unless anyone has a different algorithmn to describe binary mathematics. *looks about*...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How can you say possibly than appear to be sure of a definite answer?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?135348-0-divided-0&p=3123285&viewfull=1#post3123285

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

...because computing and developing an artificial intelligence is the final frontier!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

An intelligence that exists within a machine, in the dark, with NOTHING to begin with except itself. Dividing zero (nothing) by zero (nothing) is the only mathematical function that can create ONE out of nothing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Binary mathematics simply describes how many of each value are in the number:


128|64|32|16|8|4|2|1|
000|00|00|00|1|0|1|0|

(the leading zeros are simply to make up the spaces)

The above value is ten because it has one eight and one two.

I cannot remember the exact formula binary mathematics uses but the current equation cannot divide zero by zero. Anyone who can describe mathematics using binary which INCLUDES dividing by zero would be a genius indeed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

x

 

OK, but maybe this is the wrong sub forum for that.

 

Well this thread is on the topic of dividing zero by zero, and THAT is the final frontier, and he knows it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Bolded .. no takers ?

Advancing .. therefore, I also do not have an infinite number of other things on my desk of which I cannot speak of dividing by zero. Therefore, I see anf agree with the OP's premise.

 

The final frontier then, must involve proving that 0/0 = 1 is mathematically consistent, or well-defined.

So, if 0/0 =1, then 0 = 0 x 1. But the second "equation" only says 0 = 0, if 0 x 1 = 0.
Suppose 0 x 1 is not = 0, then 0 must not be . . . equal to zero (??)

Houston, we have a problem,

 

If \(b \neq 0 \) then \(c \times \frac{a}{b} = \frac{c \times a}{b}\).

But if this rule applies to \(\frac{0}{0} = 1\) then it follows that:

\(10^9 \quad = \quad 10^9 \; \times \; \1 \quad = \quad 10^9 \; \times \; \frac{0}{0} \quad = \quad \frac{10^9 \; \times \; 0}{0} \quad = \quad \frac{0}{0} \quad = \quad 1\).

And that doesn't make sense.

If \(\frac{0}{0} = 1\) that doesn't change that \(f(a) = \lim_{x\to a} \frac{b x - b d}{c x - c d} = \frac{b}{c}\) is a constant function of a and isn't equal to 1 unless \(b = c\). So \(\frac{0}{0} = 1\) is neither useful nor necessary to mathematics.

 

So zero divided by zero is one. Take this example.
A teacher takes an apple to school each day and divides it among his pupils.
One day there is a great snowstorm, and neither the teacher nor his pupils could get to school.
So that day there is no apple and no pupils to divide it among.
The next day the teacher finds an apple on his desk, where none had been before.
Right?

 

There has been the teacher.

 

No.
The snowstorm remember.
No teacher, no children, and yet an apple appears.
Is that possible?

 

I got it!

Faries! A fairy dropped it in.

Otherwise

You said So zero divided by zero is one

So I have no (ZERO) dollar, I divide it by zero, and end up with ONE dollar, right ?

Off to the bank I go. A million times a day.

 

PS, Capt Kremmen, you haven't responded to my post #37, which was a response to your earlier. Is it because you are unable to ?

 

I can see your point. Yes the lawyer wouldn't actually say "Nothing divided by three is nothing",
but that is the calculation involved. The result is obvious.
I didn't really want to argue with if you think no maths is involved.

So the lawyer reads out the will to the man's children:
"To each child an even share of my islands"
Then he looks at the inheritors, and he might well say:
"so, I'm afraid you each get nothing"

Each gets his share, but the share of nothing is nothing.
Neither will any of the inheritors disagree with the calculation,
and claim that they should have infinite islands, or any other figure.

As for my Teacher story, I am trying to make the point to Mathers that you cannot make something
by dividing nothing by nothing.
Of course no apple appears on the teacher's desk.

 

Thanks. will reply tommorrow.

 

Hi rpenner.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have long contended, with supporting arguments, that zero is not actually a number on the number line (or a number of of any kind anywhere in any logic system for that matter).

One argument I make is that zero is a 'condition' or a 'state' rather than a 'unique numerical value' of any sort. One example I use is the 'zero' as used conventionally when depicting the number line itself extending both ways (ie, into negative numbers and positive numbers from a common zero point/value).

The most obvious inconsistency with treating zero as a 'unique' number (supposedly on that number line) is that it effectively has the zero BOTH a negative number AND a positive number, simultaneously.

The only way that can be logically tenable at all, is if that zero merely indicates a transition state (or a superposition state if you prefer)...ie, if it is effectively and logically an Origin Symbol only...and NOT any 'number' of any kind that is part of the number line as it is being axiomatically derived/depicted currently.

I have yet to see any effective counterarguments/counterviews to this straightforward dissenting observation/contention of mine regarding the current convention (ie, considering/treating zero as a 'number') by the professional mathematical fraternity/sorority (as you confirmed in your abovequoted post).

I would therefore greatly appreciate your own learned counterargument in support your own counterview to my one just stated again here. Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You post a lot like RealityCheck.

Does 0.9r = 1?

 

For the sake of further argument on this particular aspect, let's treat zero as a number, so that I can make a humble observation/suggestion which can end this "undefined" situation for the expression "0/0"....by the simple, straightforward and logically valid /preferable treatment of that "0/0" expression under the mathematical Rules of Evaluation of Expressions; thusly...


For example, in the abovequoted exercise by you, rpenner, you could have left the "0/0" expression 'un-decomposed' (rather than decomposed to two separate multiplier entity and divisor entity) by the simple Occam's Razor expedient of putting the "0/0" in Parentheses and treating it as a 'complete' entity all the way through.

This would avoid the trivial treatment/decomposition of that expression altogether, and hence left the "0/0=1" value intact AS "1".

I point out that any such 'decomposition' of similar like/like 'expression' (eg, 9/9 or 10/10, or 0/0 etc) is INVALIDLY TRIVIAL when purporting to 'prove' any serious point via dependence on such a trivial and NON-occam's Razor treatment.

The only NON-trivial treatment of any "like/like" expression (which always effectively equal "1") is to leave it alone (by putting it in parentheses right at the starting statement (and keeping it there all the way through).

My point is that your using the zeros separately as multiplier and as divisor is TRIVIAL and against the logical requirements that ANY 'like/like' expression is always to be treated AS 'unitary' all the way through, rather than 'trivially and arbitrarily decomposing' such expressions merely to suit your 'proof' treatment which is thus made trivial and illogical, especially obvious if and when the parentheses/rules are invoked to protect the integrity of that 'unitary' expression (irrespective of what nunbers are used to express that unitary 'like/like' entity).

Hence, IF zero is a number, and IF any number is used in an 'like/like' expression (such as 9/9, 10/10, 0/0 etc,), then I humbly suggest that Parentheses be always used in such cases (and especially for "0/0") so to avoid any more trivial arguments and any further "undefined" sidesteps to recognizing the actual nature/value of such an expression as "0/0".


Your further comments/opinions on this humble observation/suggestion would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Have you any contribution to make on topic based on the arguments/ideas presented objectively? Or do you wish to continue subjectively trolling the person and get reported/banned for it? Your choice.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!