[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 94 KB, 750x600, division by zero.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11768455 No.11768455 [Reply] [Original]

If you divide by nothing wouldn't you get nothing?

>> No.11768464

how can you divide by nothing

>> No.11768468

>>11768464

This really clinches the "is math invented or discovered" debate for me

We don't know what happens if you divide by zero, hence we just say it's "undefined."
But if humans invented math why couldn't they just invent the answer? They can't!! They must observe a division by zero occurring organically in nature first. ergo, math is discovered, not invented

>> No.11768469
File: 760 KB, 259x214, 1546473419897.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11768469

>>11768455
>>11768464
>nothing
define.

>> No.11768477

>>11768455
Division of zero is a broken statement, like how long is the color blue

>> No.11768479

>>11768468
"dividing by zero" isn't an actual physical action
Mathematically speaking, if 5/0 were a number "x" then by what division is supposed to entail, x is the number that you multiply by 0 to get 5, but that doesn't exst

>> No.11768485
File: 46 KB, 411x270, main-qimg-24ff2ad293370340c74d6de6ba0d253b.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11768485

>>11768477
>how long is the color blue
490–450 nano meters

>> No.11768486
File: 18 KB, 558x614, file.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11768486

If I want to divided a cake by 0 parts, wouldn't I get the whole cake?

>> No.11768502

>>11768486
that's if you divided it by 1 part

>> No.11768520

>>11768455
Would you not get infinity? 0 can go into any number an infinite amount of times

>> No.11768525
File: 8 KB, 600x300, 0 by x.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11768525

0/0=0
1/0=+-∞

>> No.11768526

>>11768468
this is actually how midwits reason

fucking imagine

>> No.11768528

>>11768468
I already knew that mathematics was discovered but I still don't understand why that's important. It exists independently of the physical but requires the physical? Can mathematics/numbers exist without the mind? Can physics exist without mathematics?

I heard that a grand unified theory is where questions beyond that theory are no longer of a mathematical nature. What do you make of that?

It's strange to think that there's an infinite number of prime numbers. Infinity can't be defined either then. It can't be scaled.
It's funny that zero is a circle and infinity is two combined circles. I don't even know anymore

>> No.11768529

>>11768485
you answered the question by interpreting it as "what's the wavelength of blue light"

>> No.11768534

>>11768477
bad example

its like asking how we could be observing existing given that nothing exists

the premise is inherently contradictory, thats the idea here

>> No.11768550

>>11768455
You can't, it's undefined. Go back to school.

>> No.11768575

>>11768468
>>11768528
Negative numbers where discovered as a maiden 800 bc took 2 apples out of an basket with one apple, the need to ad an additional apple before the can start to fill the basked again.
If i cut a cake zero times, it stays the same as simple is that.
You cant just simply use divide(persons) and divide (objective fragmentation) in your math and then say its the same.
OFC its a fucking invention.

>> No.11768673

>>11768479
>physical action
Sure it is. If you split 5 apples between 0 people, the apples rot away.

>> No.11768680

>>11768575
Cutting a cake doesn’t map to division. If you cut a cake once you’re dividing by 2. If you cut it twice you’re either dividing into 3 or 4, depending on your cuts.

>> No.11768682

>>11768455
It proves zero is not a number because nothing doesn't exist. Indians should stick to pooing in loo.. or not.. or whatever it is they do.

>> No.11768685

>>11768455
There isn't nothing of anything. There aren't any apples "here", but what is "here"? Is it a closed system?

>> No.11768697

>>11768455
Well how many of 0 is in 1? Or in 2?
Some cucks say infinite, but the true answer is u n d e f i n e d

>> No.11768698

>>11768455
Any number divided by zero equals itself.

>> No.11768703

>>11768682
Nothing is the memory of something that isn’t there anymore. Are you saying you have no memories?

>> No.11768866

>>11768673
That happens no matter how you split them

>> No.11768904

>>11768455
Division is the inverse of multiplication. When you say "a/b=c," you mean "there exists exactly one number x such that bx=a, and that x is c." If a and b are real numbers, there is always exactly one x which satisfies that criterion, other than when b=0. "Exactly one" is important, since it means that you can use one side of the equation (a/b=c) as a stand-in for the other without loss of information (which is what we usually mean by equality). When b=0 the number of solutions is no longer one. When a=0, all real x satisfy bx=a, and otherwise, no real x does. In both cases, we call a/b (which is a/0) "undefined" in order to prevent people from substituting them into other equations and ending up with nonsense.

>> No.11768916

If you divide by 2 shouldn't you get 2? This is your logic

>> No.11768917

>>11768486
you can't divide a cake into zero pieces, that only works in the anti-universe

>> No.11768991

"Infinite" jumps in math can be handled by pairing functions with things like schwartz distributions, so you can get useful results. (like the "derivative" of the unit step "function"). Mathematically speaking, these methods are completely rigorous, so we have sort of figured it out.

>> No.11769058
File: 100 KB, 1280x720, whoa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11769058

>>11768917
>that only works in the anti-universe
>tha anti-universe
whoa

>> No.11769195

>>11768455
>>11768468
>>11768479
>>11768528
>>11768575
The question of “invention vs discovery” isn’t really important to understanding mathematics both as a collection of knowledge and as a culture around reasoning about abstract structures.
As for the division by zero, all mathematics is predicated on defining well formed formulas, propositions, and constructions. In the context of its own structure, division by zero isn’t meaningful, doesn’t yield anything interesting about ring structure with it’s inclusion (inb4 wheel theory anon shows up), etc.. The noninvertibility of zero is a simple consequence of the fact that we are interested in rings where 0 and 1 are distinct.

>> No.11769573
File: 76 KB, 785x731, EFk3uNOWwAEb9Qi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11769573

>You can't, it's undefined. Go back to school.

>> No.11770320
File: 48 KB, 645x729, Literally (YOU).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11770320

>>11768455
>If you divide by nothing wouldn't you get nothing?

>> No.11770323

>>11768917
Please take your pills.

>> No.11770332

>The absolute state of sci
Everyone who's posted in this thread is a fucking retard. Look up wheels you idiots.

>> No.11770346

You have 3 apples and divide them with 0 friends. How many apples does 1 friend get?

>> No.11770348

>>11768455
Let R be a ring where 0 has a multiplicative inverse, say 1/0. But 0a = 0 for all a. so 0 = 0(1/0) = 1 since 1/0 was defined to be the inverse of 0. So 0=1 in R. But then a = a1 = a0 = 0 for all a so R = {0}. In Z we have 1!=0 so 0 can't have a multiplicative inverse.

>> No.11771052

>>11768698
Schizo