/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12696859
What is a mindfuck? I am curious to know.

>>12696859
I have one apple. I divide it zero times(I give you zero apples). You have zero apples.

>>12696859
No, it's undefined.
If you go with the algorithmic method of division, you will keep having a remainder to keep dividing, so the process is infinitely never ending.

Logically, yeah, sure. I guess you can say not dividing an apple to anyone means you would keep it, but that does not really work mathematically.

>>12696859
>thoughts ?
What was the purpose of you choosing that pic?

>>12696867
I have one apple. I divide it by 0.1 (i give you 0.1 apple) And you have 10 apples. Divide by zero = infinity.

>>12696867
what if I multiply it by i?

>>12696883
That depends on the size of your ego

>>12696859
Think of division as measuring a line segment of length [math]A[/math] units with a measuring stick of length [math]M[/math] units. You can't do this when the length of the measuring stick is zero. So [math]\dfrac{A}{0}[/math] is meaningless.

>>12696889
>t. has a small measuring stick

>>12696859
is this a black hole

>>12696867
No, you don't divide it zero times. You divide it among zero people. How much does each of the 0 people get? Remember, you do have an apple.

>>12696955
Nothing.

>>12696955
They get nothing, but I have an apple, so the result should be one on the account of me having an apple.

>>12696960
But the process does not occur if you still have the apple. Therefore, it is undefined.

>>12696966

>>12696966
that's not why it's undefined. division by 0 is undefined because there is literally no rule for how to do it, so math can't be performed. trying to divide by 0 is like trying to press the jump button when playing minesweeper. this move is not programmed into the game, it can't be use to manipulate the state of the minesweeper board.

>>12696981
>that's not why it's undefined. division by 0 is undefined because there is literally no rule for how to do it, so math can't be performed.
Anon, that's what I am saying.
When trying to divide an apple among 0 people, and you decide to pocket it and move along, the process does not take place.
You didn't divide it, you kept it and moved on.

>>12696859
[math] 1 / 0 = 0[/math] I have one apple, I want to divide it into 0 parts, so I have 0 parts remaining because I didn't divide it nor I considered any part resulting from the division as a whole.

>>12696894
yes like the one in your brain

>>12696994
dividing means to allocate the parts that the sum of them gives you the counter
6/3 = 2+2+2
12/4 = 3+3+3+3
so how the fuck
1/0 = 0? it should strive to reach one
0+0+0+0+0... = 1?

>>12696990
no you said something different. the reason people struggle with division by 0 is because they are taught that division has an inherent meaning, and this meaning is explained using the story about cutting objects into equally sized pieces.

in fact this is incorrect, division doesn't have a meaning. math is a tool and we assign the meaning to everything depending on the job we need to accomplish. this is what i was trying to say. you are not saying this, you were still stuck in the narrative about dividing an apple. even now you're still doing it.

my hope is to get you to forget the story about the apple and focus on the rules of inference. this way of looking at math is mechanical and unappealing to many, but it's precisely because it's unappealing that it lets you avoid many confusions and philosophical difficulties. so much time and energy is being wasted by people thinking about these sorts of issues, it's such a waste. perhaps right now you have an explanation within the apple cutting narrative to explain why division by 0 can't be done, but what will you do when having to explain 0.999 = 1? and what about after that? this is going to waste even more of your energy

>>12696859
Division is the opposite operation of the multiplication.

If 10 / 2 = 5 ; it means 5 * 2 = 10

If you claim 1 / 0 = 1 ; then it'd mean 1 * 0 = 1.
I'm sure you see the issue here

[eqn] \frac{1}{0} = \lim _{n\to 0} \frac{1}{n} = \pm\infty [/eqn]
Problem solved.

>>12696876
It's a meme that jokingly represents what happens when you divide by zero.

>>12697026
Then 1 / 0 = 0

>>12697054
DIVIDING BY 0 IS NOT ALLOWED

>>12697060
Watch me do it.

>>12697020
Yes it is the same.
If you ask someone how they'd divide an apple among 0 people, they would call you nuts and move on.
The operation of dividing by 0 does not take place because it is undefined.

>>12697026
>Division is the opposite operation of the multiplication.

look i know this retarded concept is very easy to understand and it works fine on 99% of the occasions, but to understand it really we need to understand first why multiply any number with 0 gives you 0 from the first place, then you can use that as an argument.
so lets assume we have 4 objects with 6 small objects inside of each of them
so its easy to just understand that every 1 object is equable to 6 small objects
so we can just 4*6 = 24
now if we have 4 objects with 0 objects inside of them. one object is actually equable to 0
so if we do 4*0 = 0+0+0+0
now by your logic it supposed to look something like this 0+0+0+0/0 = 4 or 0+0+0+0/4 = 0 one define one is not, see the problem?

>>12697068
in fact they wouldn't call you nuts, they would ask you what do you mean, and try to find methods of dividing the apple, hoping to discover the nature of division. you can see such discussions in this very thread.

>>12697065
You'd break your mechanical calculator and it'd be very painful

>>12697020
So your argument is semantics, not actual mathematics? Is this what autism looks like?

>>12696994
>1/0=0
Division is reverse multiplication if 1/0 = 0 then 0*0=1 which is clearly not the case.

>>12697026
if 1/0 = 0
so 0*0 = 1

>>12697182
do you need help reading my post?

>>12696859
technically dividing by zero is undefined, since that's the precise mathematical definition that comes with any set of "numbers" (look up "fields" under algebra), but to see why you can look at a couple of cases, each with it's own examples:

one case, technically being the algebraic view, comes when you consider what the inverse of zero would be with respect to some number. Let's denote the inverse of zero with respect to 1 to be [math] x [\math].

So we have [math] 0 \times x = 1 [\math]. so far it looks like we could just rebrand it as [math] x = \frac{1}{0} [\math]. but now consider [math] (3 \times 0) \times x [\math] and [math] (5 \times 0) \times x [\math].

Both of the brackets in these are zero, so the answer should be 1 right? but then if you move the brackets around, you have [math] 3 \times ( 0 \times x) = 3 \times 1 = 3 [\math] and [math] 5 \times ( 0 \times x ) = 5 [\math]. So what gives? we can move brackets around when multiplying all other numbers, why can't we here? this inconsistency is inherent to what one may think of as "numbers" in some sense, so multiplying by [math] x [\math] can't be well defined, since you don't have a straight up output for multiplying 0 by it. This is particularly a problem for our [math] x [\math] here, since we literally defined it in terms of what it does when it's multiplied by zero. since you don't have a unique output for multiplying [math] x [\math] by zero, you just don't have any sense to it. the definition of the thing breaks down in the system itself.

>>12697068
if you ask someone how they'd divide an apple among -13/5 people, they would call you nuts and move on. yet 1/(-13/5) makes perfect sense.

>>12697286
why is LaTeX not working?

>>12697289
the retard dont use foreword slash [math][math\][/math]
kek

>>12697286
technically dividing by zero is undefined, since that's the precise mathematical definition that comes with any set of "numbers" (look up "fields" under algebra), but to see why you can look at a couple of cases, each with it's own examples:

one case, technically being the algebraic view, comes when you consider what the inverse of zero would be with respect to some number. Let's denote the inverse of zero with respect to 1 to be [math\] x [\math].

So we have [math\] 0 \times x = 1 [\math]. so far it looks like we could just rebrand it as [math\] x = \frac{1}{0} [\math]. but now consider [math\] (3 \times 0) \times x [\math] and [math\] (5 \times 0) \times x [\math].

Both of the brackets in these are zero, so the answer should be 1 right? but then if you move the brackets around, you have [math\] 3 \times ( 0 \times x) = 3 \times 1 = 3 [\math] and [math\] 5 \times ( 0 \times x ) = 5 [\math]. So what gives? we can move brackets around when multiplying all other numbers, why can't we here? this inconsistency is inherent to what one may think of as "numbers" in some sense, so multiplying by [math\] x [\math] can't be well defined, since you don't have a straight up output for multiplying 0 by it. This is particularly a problem for our [math\] x [\math] here, since we literally defined it in terms of what it does when it's multiplied by zero. since you don't have a unique output for multiplying [math\] x [\math] by zero, you just don't have any sense to it. the definition of the thing breaks down in the system itself.

>>12697286
>>12697297
>[math][\math]
>[\math][\math]
>next permutation is [\math][math]
>it will work this time i swear

>>12697308
Welcome to the twilight zone

>>12697286
[math\] x [math] , [math] x [math\] , [math\] x [math\]
[\math] x [math] , [math] x [\math] , [\math] x [\math]
[\math] x [math\] , [math\] x [\math] , [math] x [math] , [\math\] x [\math\]

i believe he is trying to work it out by process of elimination

>>12697317
[math] X [/math]

>>12697317
i give up lol
>>12697308
>>12697311
>>12697320
ah yes, what sin I have committed! erring on the prestigious boards of /sci/, sullying the experience of the most respectable minds of our generation.
forgive me niggerfaggots, I should have not even tried, too afraid to be judged by retards online, remaining stagnant for all time

>>12697333
[math] X [\/math]

>>12697333
>ah yes, what sin I have committed! erring on the prestigious boards of /sci/, sullying the experience of the most respectable minds of our generation.
Damn right you are.

>>12697333
but nobody said anything. you got embarrassed on your own ;^)

>>12697333
this is just a prank dong [math]"[math][/math]"[/math]

[math]"[/math]

>>12697335
[math]\vspace*{-30em}{\int\int\int\int}[/math]

excellent, my lurking has paid off.
[math]success[/math]

>>12697317
Use [m_ath][/m_ath] tags for inline, and [e_qn][/e_qn] tags for block equations. no underscore

>>12696955
>>12696867
This. Zoomers be quiet stop larping like cringey cunts. Use real life reasoning.

>>12697351
I am out of my depth, oh great one.

>>12697351
[math]\theHackerKnownAs4Cuks[/math]

>>12696859
Read >>12696955. You are a colossal retard OP

>>12696859
This thread was around last week. 1/0 = Knot
Knot = Everything
Not infinity, a number or concept that is always bigger or always 1 more, but bigger than that, everything.

Another option is that it equals itself. that is 0/0 = 0/0, or rather that x/0=0/0, double 0 that is, like a 00 on the roulette wheel.
So, 0/0 = 00

>>12697377
[math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math][math][/math]

>>12697365
what is 3 divided by 1/3 using real life reasoning?

>>12697360
[math] Thanks [/math] <3

Basically you need another symbol that it equals because the current setup has symmetry issues, and doesn't include the right symbol.

Same way 1/infinty does not = 0, it tends towrads 0 in the limit. 1/infinity = infinitesimal is much more accurate. But math doesn't have a generally accepted infinitesimal symbol. You could borrow from calculus and use delta.
[eqn]\frac{1}{\infty}=\Delta[/eqn] or something like that.

>>12697403
1/inf = 0

>>12697409
nope

>>12697412
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line#Arithmetic_operations

>>12697333
newfag

>>12696859
If you follow that logic then surely this must be true:

1/0 = 1
2/0 = 1
3/0 = 1

therefore 1/0 == 2/0 => 1 = 2

Clearly this is wrong.

>>12697391
[math]
[math][/math]
[math]x[/math]
[math]x[/math]
[math]x[/math]
[math]x[/math]
[math]x[/math][/math]

>>12697333
>[maph]1+1=3[\derph\]

>>12696859
More like...
>you have one apple
>you want to divide it to 0 parts
>you smash it with the force of a thousand suns
>the apple splits into an uncountable number of parts
>yet it is not infinite

>>12697054
Then 0*0 = 1

>>12697333
use /[/math/][/math\]. Your output will be [math]x[/math]

>>12696859
It's not a mindfuck to you because you're retarded. REALLY think about the physical meaning of division by zero. Clearly you've done none, but try it.

>>12697906
>REALLY think about the physical meaning of division by zero

give me one example

>>12696859
When you have a concept that represents a value placement and divide by a concept that represents a non-value placement, you get errors.

0 represents non-value placement.
any other number represents a value placement.
Similarly the problem arises when you divide any number by infinite. Infinite is a sum of value placement, it cannot divide by itself unless you get into infinite regression.

>>12697419
It's still wrong/incomplete. All it does it take an already incomplete, asymmetrical symbol set, and tack on the infinities, and then goes on to make the same inaccuracies in it's arithmetic operations. I mean it's "better," or interesting to consider, and offers some utility, but it's lacking.

The wiki looks like it was contributed to by Tooker by the way, I wonder if he wrote or edited some of it. Maybe he just draws upon it for linguistics often.

>>12696867
Who said you were giving it to anyone?

>>12700628
actually you give a fragment of the apple to zero persons , that is how division is supposed to work

>>12700628
so yeah you could potentially divide the apple in infinite parts if you give it to zero persons cause you just dont divide it, so the apple gets whole and a whole apple has infinite parts

>>12696876
Asymptote?