/sci/ - Science & Math

Well if X / X = 1 I guess this works for 0 / 0

0/0
= 0 * 1/0
= 0^2 * 0^(-1)
= 0^(2 + (-1))
= 0^1
= 0

If you define function evaluation like
http://us.metamath.org/mpegif/df-fv.html
it is <span class="math">\emptyset[/spoiler] but most people would just say it is undefined.

It's 0 dipshit

0/0 = 0/0 + 0/0 - 0/0 = (0+0)/0 - 0/0 = 0/0 - 0/0 = 0

Both. At the same time.

>>5823440

The smaller the denominator, the larger the result. 1/\epsilon is already infinity, so if you're dividing by something smaller than an arbitrarily small number, the result would have to be bigger than infinity, which doesn't make sense. So anything divided by zero is bigger than infinity, which isn't a thing, so it's just undefined.

>>5824038
> hasn't heard of aleph null, aleph one...etc.

zero doesn't exist, it's a concept. so if you were divide a factual instance by it it doesn't result in a graspable function. that's why you can't divide by zero.

it's undefined but if you really wanted to define it in a way that was consistent it would be 0, lim n->0 {0/n} is a sequence {0,0,0,...} and it's limit is clearly 0. So if you wanted to define it to be 1 or something else then you would have 0/0 != lim n->0 {0/n} which is a little irksome.

It is undefined. End of story.

>>5824051
U fugen loser. -3 is also not a actual number and we can devide by it....o

(n*x)/x
as x approaches infinity, both(n*x) and x approach infinity.
(n*x)/x can be reduced to n
n can be anything from negative infinity to positive infinity.
A number of the form 0/0 can be anything from negative infinity to positive infinity.

>>5824107
"as x approaches infinity, both(n*x) and x approach infinity."
SHOULD HAVE BEEN
"as x approaches 0, both(n*x) and x approach 0"

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

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

2/0 = undefined
1/0 = undefined
0/0 = undefined


So. Which is it?

>>5824082
i always get embarrassed for you whenever I read one of your posts

It's undefined, stop trying to reinvent the wheel with your silly school level maths. An elementary way of describing it would be 0/0 =how many zeros in zero? Is it zero? Or is there 1 zero in zero? Its not possible to know because it could be any number of zeros eg. 0*0*0*0*0=0 and thus it is simply undefined.

Guys..
0/0 =O
so..
O=Diameter
Diameter=2Π

so that mean:
0/2 = O?
nop..

you got it..

lim x->0 1/x = inf
lim y->0 y/1 = 0

Multiplication "pivots" around 1 (multiply by number smaller than 1, get smaller number, multiply by number larger than 1, get larger number).

The farthest you can go away from 1 is 0 in one direction, and infinity in the other direction. So, in a way, 1 is the average of 0 and infinity. So we average the two limits, and get 1.

This accords with 3/3, 2/2, 1/1, 0.5/0.5, 0.33/0.33, as well.

the limit is of x/x is 1 and it's a constant function, but you're approaching it in the lame algebra way and 0 is a destructive number.

1/0=0

1+1/0=0+1

1+1=0+1*0

2=0+0

2=2(0)

2/2=0

1=0

Naild it!

>>5823440
Number divided by same number is always 1.
No fucking exceptions. Learn to goddamn math, idiots.

>>5824211
Actually the fact that any number will solve 0/0, and none will solve the other /0 says something huge too. don't extrapolate that simple identity to the undefined.

>>5823440
0x = 0 for any value of x
Divide both sides by 0
x = 0/0
Thus 0/0 can be any number and is therefore meaningless

For any field, define the true inverse function to be the inverse function extended by mapping the additive identity to itself. Define true division as multiplication by the true inverse. Now we can truly divide by zero.

Why would it equal phi?

1/0 is undefined.
Division is essentially inverse multiplication.

3 * 5 = 15
So if you read it backwards,
15 / 5 = 3

So if we apply it to 4 / 4 = 1
then we read: 1 * 4 = 4

So why is 0/0 undeterminate?
Because _ * 0 = 0, and that _ can be anything.
1 * 0 = 0
3 * 0 = 0
5 * 0 = 0
0 * 0 = 0

Therefore, 0/0 is essentially a problem that declares that every answer is the right one.

Likewise, nonzero / 0 is also indeterminate, but for fundamentally different reasons.

Let's look at 5/0
_ * 0 = 5
or 3/0
_ * 0 = 3

Essentially, no answer is the right one. Whereas 0/0 is accepts any answer, nonzero/0 essentially rejects the answer. It rejects it so much that it essentially rejects the question from being asked.
This is why dividing by zero is unquestionably bad.

>>5823446
AHH
FUCK
NO
WHERE'S THE FLAW IN THIS
I CAN'T FIND IT
FUCK

>>5824211
And yet 0 divided by any number is always 0.
No exceptions. Which one is it?

>>5824048

alephs only work for cardinalities?

>>5825429

nvm, nah I guess not.

But you can't make a function such that the limit is "aleph one" though right? Due to continuum hypothesis? I'm guessing this is an issue of interpretation and why you cannot describe the limit of some function to be an aleph number...

>>5825484

>>5825486
This thread is different.

undefined

>>5825603
Why?

>>5826282
because either the set is null or contains all reals

<span class="math"> 0/0 = \nexists [/spoiler]

>>5825392
Pretty good explanation.

>>5826914
Algebraic and everything, really helped me get what numbers are.

stupid question

>>>/rules/sci/

>>5826283
Why?

>>5826283
That doesn't make any sense.

zero has unique properties so when you divide ANYTHING by zero, even zero itself, you do not retrieve a numerical value, you will always get null.

>>5830091
Are null and zero different number? What if they are?

>>5826953
The question is not stupid at all. It's a serious mathematical problem.

+*+ = ?
+++ = ?
+-+ = ?
--- = ?

If you can't answer those with your assumptions. Your assumptions are broken.

1=0

x*0 = 0 has an infinite number of solutions.

>>5832449
What kind of mathematical problem?

Lets go ask wolfram alpha

/thread

>>5833331
Wolfram alpha can only compute what it was programmed to compute. Wolfram won't come up with new theorems.

>>5834229
>Implying Wolfram Alpha hasn't become self-aware

>>5834248
>self-aware
I do not know what that is. Are there any testable effects?

>>5834229
>implying mongoloids on /sci/ will.

>>5835035
mirror test

Have mathematicians really not been able to solve such a simple problem yet?

I guess that's why they call it just a theory, a geuss

>>5835346
Has been debunked as unscientific a long time ago.