/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11365847
Brought to you by /0 gang

>>11365847
it's far more simple. zero goes into anything a infinite amount of times.

>>11365902
No 1/0 is positive infinity. See original post

>>11365847
Quantum physics says that electrons can tunnel through potential barriers. This means that there can be current flow which current may flow which implies a non-infinite impedance. In addition, if the applied voltage is above the breakdown voltage we may also get current flow.

>>11365847
Anything over 0 is simultaneously positive and negative infinity. It can't be both, so that means it just doesn't work

>>11365847
>he doesn't know that capacitor charging steady state is never really achieved

>he doesn't know that infinite impedance is an approximation

>>11366060
Says who? Why not (1/0) = +INF and -INF

>>11366014
>>11366060
>>11366116

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

>>11365847
Youre aware its an approximation, right? There are many, many examples in engineering of a variable going to infinity in a certain situation, even though it isnt reflected in reality.

>>11366137
>isn’t reflected in reality
>what is DC
>what is exactly 0Hz

>>11366148
Whats not reflected in reality is anything having an impedance of infinity or zero, as charge will always flow. Your mistake is thinking that the 1st year engineering formula is an immutable truth.

>>11366158
>no such thing as impedance of zero
>superconductors exist

>>11366203
https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/SRF91/papers/srf91f11.pdf
It might be a bit confusing for you seeing as you just started RLC circuits, let me know if you have any questions

>>11366219
Yes I have one question. Why don’t you accept the simple fact that 1/0 equals positive infinity?

>>11365847
Dividing any cardinal number by 0 would only achieve a positively infinite calculation. But since the calculation itself is infinite, there can never be a final result to complete the equation.
I don't know much about electrical stuff, but I'm gonna guess that the shit you're talking about isn't measured cardinally.

>>11365847
Why positive infinity?

[eqn]\frac{1}{j \omega C} = \frac{-j}{\omega C} \\
\lim_{\omega \rightarrow 0} \frac{-j}{\omega C} = (\frac{-j}{C}) \lim_{\omega \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{\omega} = \frac{-j}{C} \infty[/eqn]

>>11367689
>cardinal number
>cardinally

>>11367705
0 times omega and C is zero. 1/0 is then positive infinity

>>11367740
>>11367745
Why

>>11365847
>If omega is zero, which it is for a DC signal, then the impedance is positive infinity.
Wrong.
>Therefore, 1 divided by zero is positive infinity.
Wrong.
Proof attached. Sorry, OP. You tried.

>>11367758
>negative capacitance

>>11367711
Yes, cardinal numbers.

>>11367767
Yes. Any other questions, anon-chan?

This thread is just an op getting btfo montage

>>11367782
>speed googling and then using a controversial result not applicable to a standard capacitor

>>11367775
>cardinal

>>11365847
Are all physics majors really this retarded?

>>11367914
I’m actually an EE. Physics majors don’t understand shit about applied electromagnetism.

>>11367917
Youre evidently a second year student judging by your comments in this thread lol

No if 1/0=inf then 0*inf=1

if 1/(epsilon)=inf then 1=epsilon*inf
epsilon= an infinitesimal real number

1/x as x approaches 0 equal inf
1/0 is undefined

>>11367959
OP btfo by precalc

Look at this graph, tell me what it equals when x=0

>>11367917
Figures. EE majors are the new INTJs.

>>11367985
Lol spend eternity scrolling up and then another eternity scrolling down.

>>11367988
BTW x never equals 0 on that graph

>>11367985
x never equals 0 on that graph it just gets infinitely close to 0. There is a discontinuity at 0 there 1/x at 0 is undefined

>>11368003
therefore

>>11367936
3rd year actually

>>11367987
>EEs are the new chads
Ftfy

>>11368008
Therefore a DC signal has a frequency of exactly 0Hz so you are a jew

>>11365847
>Dividing by 0 is possible

Well, not on a field its not.

The field axioms clearly state that there's an element [math]0 \neq 1[/math] such that [math]x + 0 = x[/math] for any field [math]F[/math]

Since on a field it can be easily proven that [math]x + y = x + z \implies y = z[/math] holds for any [math]x,y,z \in F[/math] then it follows that [math]0x = 0[/math] since [math]0x = (0 + 0)x = 0x + 0x[/math].

The multiplicative inverse is defined such that if [math]x \in F \implies \exists x^{-1}\in F : xx^{-1}= 1[/math].

If we let [math]x = 0^{-1}[/math] then a contradiction yields, as if [math]x = 0^{-1} \implies 0x = 1[/math] but we proved that for any [math]x \in F[math] then [math]0x = 0[/math] and from the axioms [math]1 \neq 0[/math] and 0x must be in F, as fields are closed.

I'm an EE btw.

>>11368200
>field axioms
>Latex

>>11367985
Math authorities say 0 isn't positive, negative or both but maths is wrong
Without being +/- a number doesn't measure anything, but 0 apples is a material quantity
It means there are no apples and no anti-matter apples
Why doesn't maths allow multiple correct answers?
Math authorities impose their values irrationally because they live in fear

OP why are you so fucking retarded? It's not "possible", it's an approximation to say a cap is an open circuit at DC. That's literally fucking it. Fucking retard.

>>11368237
Why are you so angry anon? Are you not an EE chad like me?

>>11368207
? You disagree with the field axioms?

>>11368284
Im an actual "EE chad", not an undergrad like you and I vehemently disagree. To the point i formally proved you cant divide by 0. See >>11368200

>>11368215
>Why doesn't maths allow multiple correct answers?
It does. They're called indeterminate forms. You don't learn much about them though if you're too brainlet to take calculus courses.

>>11368810
>formally proved
>unironically shitting on undergrads

>>11365847
>1/jwC
>omega

>>11366014
>>11366116
>>11366158
wow op just got BTFO'd in record time. usually it takes a lot longer.

>second year undergrad student larping as a third year student who calls himself an engineer but doesnt understand first year concepts

>>11369456
>larping as third year
No I actually am third year you jew. Just accept simple reality and join divide by zero gang.

If w is zero it is steady state and the equation doesnt hold dawg

>>11369914
Steady state applies to the long term stable behavior at any frequency dawg

>>11368824
Ignoring the central popint - what else could be expected from math authority insects
You can't even bring yourself to define 0 coherently, let alone divide by it
Continue shaking in your calculus boots

>>11365847
>>11365899
>>11365902
>Dividing by zero is possible. Here’s how I know:

>>11370816
So where’s the argument?

>>11368935
Really? Cuz I thought he is at least a decent troll