0/0=?

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlphaNumeric said:
It isn'ta theory and I don't consider it such. 'Pet theory' is standard phrasing. Your comments about my use of it are either ill informed or deliberate trolling. As for your claims, I was referring to your general behaviour and reason to have a gripe with me. And it wasn't me who made the first reference to religion but funny how you didn't call the person first brought it up on it. Excellent double standards.

Here's a general suggestion. Try to make your typical post more than one line. If you are going to reply with just one sentence then elaborate on your thinking and reasoning. It would make your contributions actual contributions rather than adding to background noise. This is not the first time I've made this suggestion. Please take it on board.
Click to expand...

. . . "one-liners" oft times serve to focus the reader's attention on the subject matter without interjecting diffusive outliers . . . . if serious "enquirers want to know" (Not plagiarising . . cite to the National Enquirer) . . . they will ask for elaboration. BTW: RE: your last paragraph . . . might I 'suggest' that you also make some more 'useful" contributions and quit trolling for meaningless responses to which you can further pontificate?
 
Last edited:
wlminex doesn't know shit about mathematics or physics, and, to his credit, he's not afraid to let the world know this.
 
Moderator note: AlexG has been banned for 3 days from sciforums for repeatedly flaming other members following official warnings not to do so.
 
.

Secret said:
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
Click to expand...

x0=1 and y0=2
x=1/0 and y=2/0
x=+oo and y=+oo
x=y
ok


z x 0 =0 so z=0
 
.

wellwisher said:
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.
Click to expand...

Whut? get things out of nothing? -_-
 
.

NietzscheHimself said:
I hope you know the history of zero started before schoolhouse rock. Possibly as the idea which created our current concept of space.
Click to expand...

This fact is illustrated by the convergence of curves at in the plot above, which shows for , 0.4, ..., 2.0. It can also be seen more intuitively by noting that repeatedly taking the square root of a number gives smaller and smaller numbers that approach one from above, while doing the same with a number between 0 and 1 gives larger and larger numbers that approach one from below. For square roots, the total power taken is , which approaches 0 as is large, giving in the limit that is large.

itself is undefined. The lack of a well-defined meaning for this quantity follows from the mutually contradictory facts that is always 1, so should equal 1, but is always 0 (for ), so should equal 0. It could be argued that is a natural definition since


(2)
However, the limit does not exist for general complex values of . Therefore, the choice of definition for is usually defined to be indeterminate.

However, defining allows some formulas to be expressed simply (Knuth 1992; Knuth 1997, p. 57), an example of which is the beautiful analytical formula for the integral of the generalized sinc function
Click to expand...

yupe, this explains it :p
I guess

check the link, the last part of it, there have been a problem is quoting
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zero.html
 
Shadow1 said:
x0=1 and y0=2
x=1/0 and y=2/0
x=+oo and y=+oo
x=y
ok


z x 0 =0 so z=0
Click to expand...
For first block, infinity is not a real number. You can have different infinities but they are all written as +oo, -oo or just oo
Infinity simply denote the value is very big/as big as you want
It is not a specific value like 1,2,3, 1/3, pi etc.

Thus +oo is insufficent to prove 1/0=2/0

For second block
any real number z sastifies the equation
e.g. z =0,1,2,3 ....
Thus z is not unique
As a multiplicative inverse (division) is unique for each number
z is not unique thus 0/0 is not a number

@Post #30
This only explains the situation surrounding 0^0 not 0/0
 
Last edited:
Secret said:
For first block, infinity is not a real number. You can have different infinities but they are all written as +oo, -oo or just oo
Infinity simply denote the value is very big/as big as you want
It is not a specific value like 1,2,3, 1/3, pi etc.

For second block
any real number z sastifies the equation
e.g. z =0,1,2,3 ....
Thus z is not unique
As a multiplicative inverse (division) is unique for each number
z is not unique thus 0/0 is not a number
Click to expand...


Effcorse oo is not a number.
I just wanted to find any result except "indeterminated" for 0/0

True, z can be any number, so it's not unique, but it does include 0,and it can
so zx0=0; z€IR
0x0=0, so 0=0/0, zx0=0, so z=0/0, while z can be 0 also
So we can that in the case of z=0, 0/0 is not indeterminated.

Or is it indeterminated because z must be unique, while it's not?
 
Here is a way to look at things. x/10 can be seen as x divided into 10 equal parts.

x/0 would then be x divided into 0 equal parts, in other words, no partitioning. That is, x is not divided at all. Therefore, nothing is being determined and so the process is indeterminate.
 
Shadow1 said:
Effcorse oo is not a number.
I just wanted to find any result except "indeterminated" for 0/0

True, z can be any number, so it's not unique, but it does include 0,and it can
so zx0=0; z€IR
0x0=0, so 0=0/0, zx0=0, so z=0/0, while z can be 0 also
So we can that in the case of z=0, 0/0 is not indeterminated.

Or is it indeterminated because z must be unique, while it's not?
Click to expand...
The workings you mentioned above is invalid as by going from 0x0=0 to 0=0/0 you have unknowningly assumed division by zero is a valid operation
More specifically
0x0=0
(0x0)/0=0/0
When you go to the next step
0=0/0
You have already imply 0/0=1 on the LHS (otherwise it will remain as (0x0)/0=0/0)

The below link illustrate how one can arrive 1=2 by using the above fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
(Check the section "Fallacies based on division by zero")

As you situation is similar to this 1=2 fallacy
We can say 0=0/0 is an invalid result
 
Last edited:
.

Hi everyone.

Just a quick observation for discussion.

Has anyone else noticed that 'dividing by O' can in some ways be logically viewed as equal to 'multiplying by I'?

In the 'division' case, the notation X/O, it is generally assumed that this 'division by O' is a 'non-operation'....in which case X remains unchanged....and to reflect that, the original notation may be extended to X/O=X....simply because the original X is still there.

And in the 'multipication by One' case, as in the notation XxI, it is generally agreed that the 'multiplication by I' is an 'operation'....BUT is it really?.....since, as in the above 'division by O' case, the X also remains unchanged, hence the extended notation reflecting that same outcome: XxI=X.

Any and all comments/perspectives welcome, axiomatic or otherwise, on that observation where BOTH a supposed 'action' and a supposed 'non-action' will leave the original X as the 'logical resultant'.

This was posted only in the interests of encouraging explorations into the logical/axiomatic bases/assumptions about 'operation' and 'non-operation' etc. :)

Thanks. Cheers. Back tomorrow. Bye all.

.
 
Last edited:
Dividing by zero isn't at all like multiplying by one. You are taking how a specific computer program has an if then check for dividing by zero and returns the input if so. Mathematics views them as entirely different. Multiplication by 1 is essential in most number systems but division by 0 is explicitly excluded usually.
 
Shadow1 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Such a topic is rather popular in scientific forums, though the answer is simple – to divide something by zero (including, of course, 0/0) is senseless since zero isn’t a number; so the division by zero is undefined.

More – see, e.g., thescienceforum.com/physics/19552-1-0-a.html
(The thread is rather spammed so it’s enough to read discussion
"SSDZ - Guitarist")

Cheers
 
Beer w/Straw said:
I didn't say that. Zero may have an iffy history, but it is still an integer on the number line.
Click to expand...

No, its not a number. Its just a reference point, just like all the other numbers. But actually, there is only one true number, the distance between two points, that is the number one. The other numbers are imposters, con artists. They are but groups of ones masquerading themselves a single entity. After Highlander: There can only be one.
 
SSDS said:
Such a topic is rather popular in scientific forums, though the answer is simple – to divide something by zero (including, of course, 0/0) is senseless since zero isn’t a number; so the division by zero is undefined.
Click to expand...
Besides the completely unsupported assertion that "zero isn't a number", I take issue with this in the following sense: there are plenty of operations that involve zero that are completely well-defined, e.g. addition or multiplication by zero. Why does the argument you give not apply there as well?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top