/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10801147
Wrong. You get infinite pieces

>>10801147
>1 ÷ 2 = 2

Right

>>10801147
Fractions should always be viewed as ratios. Therefore is nothing with 1/0. It’s just a ratio, 1:0. Multiply it by 2, and get 2:0. Divide by 2, and you get 0.5:0. This works in the real world

>>10801147
Do 1/0.1 the numbers start getting bigger as you approach zero in the denominator.

You’ve proven that the reciprocal of 1/0 is 0, good job

>>10801383
which means it's a finite number
I would say that's actually a pretty good job

>>10801156
>>10801176
>>10801200
>if I cut my pizza into 1/2 slices, I get a free pizza
this is what fractionalists actually believe

1/0=x
=> 1=x*0
no real number x satisfies this equation. therefore 1/0 is undefined. it's almost like your 8th grade algebra teacher knew what they were talking about.

>>10801555
so?
just use it as the definition for a made up number like i and use that, problem solved

>>10801200
>he thinks functions have to be continuous

>>10801555
>he thinks operations have to be invertible

Brainlets, amirite?

This is the issue with dividing by 0, anon.

See how it approaches different values depending what side you come in at.

>>10801603
>he thinks operations have to be invertible
a/b=c iff a=bc IS the definition of division. So, yes. Actually this operation does have to be invertible.

>>10801555
You could make up a special meme number like they did with negative roots.

z * 0 = 1
2z * 0 = 2
3z * 0 = 3

Problem solved.

>>10801578
So now you have a number that isn't a real or a complex number has no use anywhere in any application. Sounds very silly.

>>10801638
see
>>10801642
Also, what does 2z/3z equal? or z+2z?

>>10801642
>has no use anywhere in any application
People said that about other meme math but it turns out they're really useful in electrical engineering.

>>10801643
2/3 and 3z

>>10801642
still more useful than black people

>>10801655
>2z/3z=2/3
>z+2z=3z
so we have it that (3z-2z)/3z=2/3
which implies 1-2/3=2/3
which implies 1/3=2/3
which is a contradiction which means your "number system" is fucking nonsense

>>10801638
>>10801655
Nigger, every number time 0 is 0. If you have none of something and have x times more of it, you still have 0 of it. With imaginary/complex numbers, there was a basis for their existence due to the fact that some quadratic equations only have complex/imaginary root, so they would have 0 roots in R, which doesn't make sense since all quadratic equations ought to have 2 numbers that when plugged in equal 0 (same goes for polynomials of order 2n (where n is a natural number greater than 0, otherwise it would have infinite solutions). There's no such reason to extend that gratitude towards your autistic pedantry.

>>10801682
*same goes for all polynomials of order 2n in that they ought to have 2n roots

>>10801681
>so we have it that (3z-2z)/3z=2/3

nah more like this

>>10801156

positive or negative infinity?

>>10801699
>i cant read
2z/3z=2/3, yes? and z+2z=3z, right? this is what you said. this is only true if 3z-2z=z. Then we have the first line of my "disproof." fucking mathlet.

>>10801708
(3z - z) / 3z = 2/3
(3-1) / 3 = 2/3
2/3 = 2/3

MATHLET!!! HAHAHHAHA

>>10801702
actually wait heres improved version
gotta have the negative pizzas in there

>>10801156
Wrong. Adding zero an infinite number of times does not equal 1.

>>10801638
>dude my number system doesn't have an multiplicative identity

one piece?

>>10801200
>0=an infinitely small decimal

>>10801147

Assume there exists a nonzero number z such that z = 1/0.
Then 0*z = 1 and hence 0 = 1/z .
Thus, since every number x = x * 1, x = x*0 *z = 0*z = 1. Thus, for any number x, x =1.
If you aren't retarded this is an obvious as fuck contradiction

>>10801851
x = x*0*z
x = x*1
x = x

I GUESS I’M RETARDED HAHAHHAHhahahahahah

>>10801867
>What is associativity (and commutuvity while we're at it)?
>x = x*1 = (x*0)*z = 0*z
Yes you are retarded

>>10801875
Associativity doesn’t apply to z HAHAHAHAHAHA get rekt nerd prove me wrong (you can’t)

>>10801885
Then it's not a fucking number then, retard. Pretty much every number in a number system is associative with any other number, even if the system isn't commutative. The same goes for the real, complex and even quaternions and octernions. I know this is bait, but Jesus Christ, put more effort into this bullshit.

>>10801900
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octonion
>They (octonions) are noncommutative and nonassociative, but satisfy a weaker form of associativity; namely, they are alternative. They are also power associative.
OH NO NO NO HAHAHAAAA

>>10801908
Your number system still doesn't have a multiplicative identity

>>10801705
depends on how n approaches 0

>>10801917
ask joe about it

>>10801147
Wrong, you can't divide something that doesn't exist at all, there is no pizza. THE PIZZA IS A LIE.

Also you're a fatass for eating pizzas.

>>10801147
>>10801156
>>10801167
>>10801176
>>10801200
>>10801383
>>10801422
>>10801541
>>10801555
>>10801578
>>10801603
>>10801627
>>10801637
>>10801638
>>10801642
>>10801643
>>10801655
>>10801657
>>10801682
>>10801688
>>10801699
>>10801702
>>10801705
>>10801713
>>10801720
>>10801728
>>10801736
>>10801761
>>10801776
>>10801841
>>10801851
>>10801867
>>10801875
>>10801885
>>10801900
>>10801908
>>10801917
>>10802020
>>10802033
>>10802702
>bitches don’t know about my Riemann sphere
The absolute state of /sci/.

>>10801728
>>10801702
thanks for this. I have no laughed this hard in what feels like years

>>10802865
damn he got us, jokes on you though i'm just gonna fold it into a sphere and then make two pizzas out of it.

>>10801627
Then there is no problem in dividing by 0^2=0, is there?

>>10803867
>dividing by 0
Don't you even?

>>10803884
what's the problem with dividing by 0^2? Come on, argue your case.

>>10804018
I believe cataclysmic waveform collapse can be and always will be derived from 0 potential.
An axiom must be considered true if the logic is without instance or potential of affecting out come.

0 velocity, 0 matter, 0 time, 0 space, 0 acceleration.

Logically this axiom cannot possibly have any outcome as a result of itself to any aspect it's involved with.

However, inversely it does upon deriving anything from it as a sole frame of reference.
It's a single reference frame.
The only measurement you can derive is distance from it via acceleration.
This comes at cost of all other motions.
As logic dictates what's gained in measurement incurres unknown potential of any and all other forces the
object has, as we know it to be now.

From two reference points, the only deviation from them in a 2d plain is gained.
That is incorrect

0 & (> 0) is two points of reference. Indisputable and calculable.
How do you gain a new reference point.

If it is to apparate in a straight line. The cascade will always fail.
Because linear systems cannot know it's own position in the value, only what's directly adjacent.
So linear calculation only ever resolves in 2 points.

So this is is where what I call Quantum stacks are birthed.
A Quantum Stack is something I've inferred from Bohmian.
Quantum stacking is where outcome from improbability comes from.
We know of Quantum wave as a potential of position.
But these stacks are for impossible and unlikely quantum events.
So that Quantum wave may propagate without failure.

A 3rd reference point is always made available due to QS between the first two points but slightly off canter.

It's not and can never be in a linear position to the first two points.
It is made in contact with 1 & 2, but off line of sight. So that 1 & 2 can see each-other But 3 is not

required to be looking at either 1 & 2.
As contact confirms position.
This conserves observation. Whilst giving greater perception of surroundings.

>>10804018
The stack gains potental whenever a state exists where less action happens to failure. Or when action can't happen.
Then the quantum stack gains possability of action for inciteing an action that will cause more action.
This will always be to cause greater potential than the state was before where it acted.

The Cryptic System Pathing is without time relevancy.
A quantum stack may act upon a uncharted state of CSP that are a result of redundant space between paths.
This creates instance of enourmous potental that fracture from CSP but are still quantafyable from CSP's vector.


A Quantum stack must always force action. In the case of inacion.
Saveing all state from critical error.
It's not a random effect. It's based on quantum probility droop.
That it's most likely to stack in a position that will propergate the most results.
Effecient and subtle. But also just reciprication and repordution of CSP origins.

Qunatum stack branches are directly intersectable with the orignal Point Zero Axoim CSP vector.
Intersecting Stack Branches are derrived from the resolution of a vector being irresolaveable by nature.


This is but a sample of my dissection of Zero and consequences there of.
I'm aiming to reform the Big-Bang equation.

>>10801147
1/0 = undefined
give me a number x that satisfies 0*x = 1
if you can't, then 1/0 stays undefined
even on the complex plane, there isn't a single number that works
>hurr durr infinity
so why is 0 * inf = 1 and not 2 or -1 or 0?

>>10804077
We need to calculate a minimum vector that intersects itself the minimum times it requires to have Pi

implode equially from intersections.

Sounds impossible because Pi can't be resolved.
But it's resolution is not in haveing the full denoteion vaule of it's decimal.

The soultion is in stipulateing propertys of the Point Zero axiom vector correctly.
Intercetions should be made when vlaues of the vector segment have been exhibited only just enought.
So that other intercetions of differing ralative vector segments upon it include the remaing data as

result of it's path so on and so forth.

The vector itself must be a complex vector by default.
Segmenting the vector is not a new equasion. But the points between intercetions.
The sucess of a segment is a unique state it exerts to and from thoes conections.

To 'fuse' each segment. Quantum stacking is applyed from the intersection.
And every intersection if multable exist in the same point.
Remember this a bit by bit calculation.
3d shapes are just center points given walls.
The result of fission must be logical.
A quantum stack cant have infinate potental at 2 points.


Because the paths of unique vector segments intersect.
And be that time doesn't exist. Change of direction is impercepterable.
So when sucessfully calculated, intersections are CSP's derrived from difrent potental than the Point

Zero Axiom.
The Zero Point Axiom must also reslove. By return of the vector to the point of origion.
In effect collapsing any evidence where a state of zero potental existed.
Continuity must be evident in each intercetion, logically related with Quantum Stackinng.
As to prove that each point equates the same.

Resloving to Point Zero confirms implosion. So long as The CSP equates from all Axioms as the same value.
Regaurdless of start value.
And that Quantum stacking is logical

>>10804077
In regaurds to Quantum stacking.
They are inherrent qualitys that are derived from CSP.
They're Proven by CSP resolving a in logical equasion.
A Quantom stack branch and other occasions will be exhibeted at all other instances in the same way.
It's fractioral in the macro. But not exceeding any boundary that was percribed by resolution of axiom CSP.

That does not mean that they become of infianate value. As they are just repercussions mirrioring CSP.
They are the same, and do no new thing, in it's explaination or existance.
Other than existing to a set of values that's the same.
If it's indertermante of diffrence to anywhere else.
It has not exceeded any dimention that gives a new value.
No determination of Quantum stack events exising is possible.
Relative position to one or other in the CSP is impossible to determine.

>>10804102
>>10804107
schizos losing touch with reality belong in >>>/x/

>>10804235
I will not accept dissmissal.
Dismissal is the Mind-Killer.
Dismissal the little-death that brings total ignorance.
I will face dismissal.
I will permit it to accost me and to attempt adhearance.
When it falls off my breast, I'll turn wrath to its origins.
Where dissmissal has failed, there will be knowlege if I remain.

>>10801147
You can't divide with 0.

>>10804292
But nothing is stopping me from deriving 3 data points/Frames of reference, yes?

>>10804262
>>10804810
yeah you may as well be braindead
knee deep in nonsensical delusions
not a single person in this thread understood a single post of yours, meaning you're just spouting gibberish

a big part of being intelligent, is being able to communicate well
you can't do that, so you're dumb

>>10801736
Brainlet. What about 0.0001? That's the whole point of limits.

>>10801541
Banach-Tarski will do that to you

>>10803867
Assuming you mean 1/x2|x=0, there is still a singularity, what anon said isn't the actual problem, obviously.

>>10806009
Care to expand on this please?
Particularly that it still is singularity, what you /you/ mean by that?
When dealing with low end 'whole' numbers. It's a strange statement.

>>10806009
It doesn't bother me. I just call 1/0^2 something like "infinity".

>>10801917
It's clear that at least one of the ring axioms fails if there exists x such that x*0 != 0, but is it necessarily the existence of a multiplicative identity?

0 = x + (-x) = x*1 + (-x) = x*(0+1) + (-x) = x*0 + x*1 + (-x) = x*0 + x + (-x) = x*0

>>10801147
1 pizza divided 0 times = 1 pizza

>>10805919
"Rutherford, this is system of equation!"
"For Christ's sake, Soddy, don't call it equation. They'll have our heads off as Kinematics."

I name it Cryptic System Pathing with good reason Anon.

>>10801176

>2 divided by 2 is 0.5

>>10801776
Zeehahahaha

>>10801147
"Division didn't happen"

>>10806804
nice gibberish
you're still dumb

>>10808843
Yeah I though so too the moment I started being Jealous of the Duck ITT.

https://1dividedby0.com

>>10804077
0 * inf = 1 or 2 or 3 all numbers.

It very beautiful as it corresponds to the idea of neoplatonism that the monad creates everythng from out itself.