# 0/0=?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Valued Senior Member
I know they always say that 0/0 is an indeterminated form, you can't find any result, but why? How ?

x/0, while x is different than 0, =+oo or -oo, or 0 if x=0,something
0/1=0, while 1/0=+oo, why not 0/0=0? while 0x0=0
as 1/0, will get, 0 x (something) = to try to reach 1, but it will never do, it keeps like 0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x....; so +oo (that's how I think about it), while 0/0, will get us 0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0... that's already 0, 0 x (something) =0

I just know that 0/0=error, you can't do it, why?

Credit goes to AN for explaining this before. There isn't really any such operation as "division." Division is the inverse operation of multiplication. For example, 10 x 1 = 10 so the high school definition of division would have you say that 10/10 = 1. What you are really saying is that $$10 \times \frac{1}{10} = 1$$ where 1/10 is the unique number that when multiplied by 10 gives one.

This may sound like a fairly insignificant distinction, but it's important when you come to think about multiplication by zero. We have that $$x \times 0 = 0$$ for any number x, so there is no unique way to invert this. It is the non-uniqueness of 1/0 that means it is undefined - it is simply not a number.

and you divide it by nothing,
then you don't divide it at all,
so you are left with nothing.

More detailed discussion is found in the division by zero thread

which unfortunately like the other threads I've made were being ignored/inactive for no apparent reason (that's why I resorted to pms, but is also took 6+ weeks to have a reply)

IMO this should be merged with that thread
On topic: The unique number argument in post #2 can explain why n/0 is undefine. For the case of n/0 (where n=/=0) using what AN taught me

Let x be the UNIQUE number where x0=1 and y be the UNIQUE number where y0=2

By manipulating the numbers in some way you can show x=y (I've been asking for the exact details in the pms, that division by zero thread and in visitor messages but so far no replies on this matter)

As for 0/0 you can say it as let z be the UNIQUE number where z0=0. Obviously any z satisfies this (except things which deal with infinities) thus z is NOT UNIQUE

Thus we can conclude that since there is a contradiction, there is no such number as z.

i.e. 0/0 is not a number and remains undefined

Re: OP

Technically 0 is a placeholder but as an abstraction x/0=undefined because as an abstraction it hasn't any use.

Some things in math are defined, like dogma, and are not the result of common sense or experimental observation, since the definition often has no place in reality. It is sort of like a fairy, where it exists in a way defined, but one will never be able to see it in reality. Religion taught math this trick such that separation of church and state should censor certain math relationships, which defy reality.

Let me give an example:

If have 1 apple and divide it by 1/10 I get 10 apples. This is predicted by math. Could this be done in the lab? This could explain how Christ was able to feed the crowd with only a basket of fish and bread. He simply divided that food by a fraction so more food would appear out of the void. Math says this is possible. Is science able to show how this is possible?

If I have an apple, and divide it by 2, I cut it into 2. If I divide by a 1/2, I cut it only half way, so there is still only one apple with a cut. But math says after this type of cutting I magically will get two apples, wow! Maybe the magic works if you cut it exactly half way; poof into two! Why don't we do that with energy so we can expand the world's supply? What type of machine do you need?

When you get x/0, we can create infinite stuff. That means the actual machine that does this cutting, into complete clones, would need infinite matter and energy. It can not occur in reality but only within the imagination.

Is there a religious elements here at work? A scientific way to feed the crowd with a basket of food based on the predictions of math and division.

Don't bring religion into it. Maths does not support religion in any way.

As for the OP 1/0 doesn't exist in the Reals so you might as well be asking what is happy/cheese. In the extended Reals were 1/0 exists in the sense of infinity existing the product 0*(1/0) doesn't exist still.

Your right. It is not a number. It is a philosophy.

Your right. It is not a number. It is a philosophy.

I didn't say that. Zero may have an iffy history, but it is still an integer on the number line.

The Schoolhouse Rock segment "My Hero, Zero" extols the virtues of zero with such praises as, "My hero, zero Such a funny little hero But till you came along We counted on our fingers and toes Now you're here to stay And nobody really knows How wonderful you are Why we could never reach a star Without you, zero, my hero How wonderful you are."

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zero.html

Last edited:
All I was saying is division, in general, does not always correspond to something we can demonstrate in reality. For example, 1 divided by a half equals 2. If I have one apple and divide it by 1/2 a second will materialize out of the void. I would pay a \$1 to see that trick.

I know how division works, because I memorized the rules and was even an honorary mathematician in my day. But still, the operation makes no sense when applied to a reality situation where you need to actually make things. It sort of implies a type of perpetual motion operation, where a transformation operation can pull substance out of of the void, and make this extra appear in reality.

In the miracle of feeding the crowd, with only a single basket full of fish and bread, a math division operation, using a fraction based on the number of people present, would do what is needed. Jesus did not violate the math operation but ended with the exact result we would calculate. Sort of weird isn't it. The math geeks of the days would not be able to refute since they say the same thing is possible. There is a little religions mystery in math.

The way I see it, even though some operations of math, such as division by a fraction, cannot be demonstrate with an experiment, it can still have practical value. It is often used in applied and practical science, to make things appear in reality that are not yet in reality, but which need human interaction so it can become manifest. This pulling our of the void, via fractional division might be helpful in terms of making a skyscraper, since natural laws and statics may not be enough for it to just appear. It will need the perpetual motion feature of the math. We need to go into the void (imagination) to get that extra stuff.

Without getting defensive, maybe someone can explain how you can physically divide something by 1/2 and get two apples from one apple? If you can't, how does including this perpetual motion procedure, impact equations about reality? Does it add an element of pixie dust ?

If we look at 0/0 since we a dividing by a tiny fraction approaching zero, we would get an infinite number of zeros, just like we would get two apples if we divided one by 1/2. If add all those infinite zeros, we would get zero.

The only way that 0/0 would not add up to zero, would be if the two apples we get by dividing one apple by half, are not the same as the original apple. The process of duplication within the void, appear to create a tiny positive change in each of the two final apples. It must be very small since it only adds up when we get an infinite number of zeros to make it stand out.

This choice for 0/0 equals infinity does give us, some additional insight into one of the first perpetual motion machines of math. Again it still has practical value, but in the world of separation of church and state minutia, this could be violation, since it assume something that is not possible in reality with experiment, yet still appears to work when applied to practical situations.

Last edited:
Wellwisher I told you religion has nothing to do with it. Mathematics is not contingent on reality and so asking what is done in reality is going done the wrong path. Talking about the 'miracle' of feeding the crowd is ridiculous. Unjustified unsupported irrational claims about incidences which have no basis in evidence is not to be done in this forum, never mind this thread. If you want to spout laughable religious nonsense do it in the appropriate forum. This is your last warning.

I didn't say that. Zero may have an iffy history, but it is still an integer on the number line.

The Schoolhouse Rock segment "My Hero, Zero" extols the virtues of zero with such praises as, "My hero, zero Such a funny little hero But till you came along We counted on our fingers and toes Now you're here to stay And nobody really knows How wonderful you are Why we could never reach a star Without you, zero, my hero How wonderful you are."

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zero.html

I hope you know the history of zero started before schoolhouse rock. Possibly as the idea which created our current concept of space.

. . . Reported AN for his post #13 . . .

The events jn the Bible referred to have no historical evidence. Thus they are unjustified and unsupported thus it is irrational to believe they occurred given they contradict the entirety of verifiable history. The connection to the question of 0/0 is laughable and religiously motivated. I asked him not to continue and yet he did. Religion has no place in this forum especially given the complete lack of connection to the original post. I could have given a infraction for the ignoring of my first post but I didn't.

The axe you have to grind with me and anyone who thinks your pet theory and take on mainstream science also laughable is itself pretty clear. Since you obviously have grievances about the site in general I suggest you take it up with admin. Your whining gets tiresome.

Wellwisher I told you religion has nothing to do with it. Mathematics is not contingent on reality and so asking what is done in reality is going done the wrong path. Talking about the 'miracle' of feeding the crowd is ridiculous. Unjustified unsupported irrational claims about incidences which have no basis in evidence is not to be done in this forum, never mind this thread. If you want to spout laughable religious nonsense do it in the appropriate forum. This is your last warning.

I was misunderstood. I was simply taking the division operation literally, to show it is does not hold up in reality. I did what you said above. I wanted the students to think instead of just hand then a bottom line. I was presenting a paradox.

The miracle presented, was just an example of an historical claim that, some claim, actually demonstrated the fractional division with a tangible experiment. I did not say it was true or not, but I used that example, hoping people will think how can the impossible result from the math. Maybe I expected more reflection concerning this impossible experiment and the nature of the math operation.

The mistake people make is assuming I am a theist, and therefore when I use reasoning, or introduce anything new, it needs to get fought and lumped into pile. I point out unique things for discussion. I like to challenge the experts to explain so the students can learn additional angles not usually taught, but I tend to bring out the defensive, insulting, or threatening nature of the experts. Sorry.

After I developed the non real experimental nature of division, which you agreed, I should how practical results can still appear out of this. You don't need real to be able to model reality. I then extrapolated the idea I was developing to show 0/0 should be zero, but since it was defined as infinity , the division procedure also had a subtle addendum, which added something extra.

AN: get off your high-horse!! Have I posted ANYTHING on THIS thread having to do with my "pet theory"? NOT!! BTW YOU are stating that it is a "theory" . . . I consider it (my pet theory) as ONLY a hypothesis . . . but, thanks for the 'step-up'

"This is your last warning! (tee hee!)"

I hope you know the history of zero started before schoolhouse rock. Possibly as the idea which created our current concept of space.

What are you talking about, and why?

AN: get off your high-horse!! Have I posted ANYTHING on THIS thread having to do with my "pet theory"? NOT!! BTW YOU are stating that it is a "theory" . . . I consider it (my pet theory) as ONLY a hypothesis . . . but, thanks for the 'step-up'