/sci/ - Science & Math

0/0 is not defined in the set of real numbers.

>>5943785

I just defined it bitch. You are in the face of new science here.

Believe it.

I just realized. That also proves why frugal single life works:

You got nothing AND you try to share it with nothing.

i.e. you got Anything.

pans out.

>>5943790
You didn't define it, you just said why it can't be defined.

>>5943829

No, I gave it a fuzzy nature.

In fact, it's very likely that the fuzziness is centerded around 1.

Notice that if a = b the number will be approaching 1.

>>5943833
The fact that it can be anything makes it undefined, no matter how uneven the proportions of possibilities are, as long as they are all there it simply doesn't matter.

>>5943845

The existence of a fuzzy 'anything' has a value. e.g. transforming it to 0 x 'anything' = 0 may in reverse (-re)prove(?) why we accept that.

And if the fuzziness had a tendency to be around 1, then it's definitely not 'just anything'.

A weird postulation this may produce is that if that 'anything' has a tendency to be closer to 1 rather that infinities then it might point towards why physical objects tend to not be infinite.

>>5943858

s/objects/numbers rather

>>5943852
>>5943782
Trying to understand what you are saying.. is pic related what you mean more or less?

>>5943782
Gz. You just have made a wrong conclusion. It is not defined as 'anything' but it is undefined. Thats how we call it.
Now go away and finish HS (told you so last time).

>>5943869

Keep being a plebian that sucks the cock of old science and never accept new ideas. You will die providing nothing to humanity.

>>5943868

Yeah.. I didn't reach 0/0 = E(1) from 0 x E = 0, the latter was just mentioned. I started with a/b with a,b approaching zero independently.

The graph looks good, though I'm not sure if it can be easily proven that it will have tendency to be around 1 rather than the infinities. It's mainly intuition at this point.

>>5943873
>Keep being a plebian that sucks the cock of old science and never accept new ideas. You will die providing nothing to humanity.
I can accept new Ideas. But they have to make any sense.
Keep thinking you are the biggest genius alive, but don't think you'll be succesful if you can't accept if you are wrong.
(I had the same Idea as you in mid-school, it's nothing special and unnecessary. You can not define 'something' as 'anything')

>>5943882

I don't think I'm a genious. The main reason I post these is for peer reviewing.

But keep being a narcissistic child that thinks it's superior. Guess what, you are nothing. Just a moronic shit that suck the cock of "Idols", doesn't accept any new idea and pretends he is smart.

You are nothing. Just a narcissistic cock.

i.e. you Projected. Congratulations.

How original.

>>5943782
cant divide by zero
dumbass

>>5943887

You're a moronic shit, that not only it is possible with numbers that tend to infinity or zero, it is in high school books.

Just die in a trench in case the DNA pool clears a bit.

>>5943886
>i.e. you Projected. Congratulations.
dito

If you are too stupid to read the thread: Everyone basicly disagrees with your idea. I never said I am superior, I only said you are wrong. Then you started insulting.

Well, whatever makes you feel like you haven't alread been proven wrong.

>>5943894

Child, the very fact you 'sage' and have zero arguments, proves you are nothing, just a narcissistic little shit that got butthurt.

>>5943892
>it is possible with numbers
No
It isn't
Try finding me a reliable source that says otherwise

>>5943898
>sage
I just don't want your thread to be bumped.

>zero arguments
1.) 'Anything' is not a number. You can't calculate with it. Your 'anything' is not a definition of something. It is what is currently called 'undefined'. You just take it, give it another name and use it wrong.
2.)
0*17=0
0*15=0
0=0
-) 0*15=0*17
(dividing through 0)
15=17
or
'anything' = 'anything'

And how is this a definition?

>protip: try stopping insulting and prove me wrong (or your hypothesis correct)

>>5943901

Just die in a trench. I won't educate you on basic math when you are a cock.

>>5943910

> I'm unable to undestand fuzzy concepts in math.

Just fuck off. You prove what a pathetic child you are the more you talk.

>>5943913
>Just fuck off. You prove what a pathetic child you are the more you talk.
>hurr durr 0/0=anything
>prove it
>you are retarded, fuck off
Either you are a 7/10 troll or to narcistic to accept that you have been proven wrong by anyone in this thread.

>>5943917

Holy shit. What a mongoloid. The concept is right there on the OP and he tries to say there is no concept.

You know what? I'm going to sage it myself.

It may accidentally educate moronic shits like you.

OP's proof is correct.

>>5943782
>"0/0" via a/b: a, b tend to 0
>1. The two numbers are independent hence they can be approaching zero but no one knows if they are the same or not
>2. That means their result can be either 1 or anything around it. Hence 0/0 is buzzing around 1. I could further describe it as a cloud of numbers around 1. I wonder if it has Quantum Mechanical implications.
>3. i.e. it can be between -oo and +oo
>i.e. 0/0 = Anything.
>That also shows why 0 x Anything = 0

Genuinely nonsensical.

First, while 0/0 can be one of the values of a/b, that does not mean a/b:
hovers around 1
usually includes a 0
is the same as the representation of 0
has anything whatever to do with 0 x anything principles.

You never get to use the phrase 'can be approaching' if you aren't talking about limits.
a and b values can be anything -- there is no relationship to 0, no reason either should be close to the other

Just because a ratio (a/b) can be anything, has nothing whatever to do with determining what 0/0 means.

0/0 doesn't mean what you think
dividing by zero is not a convention, it just doesn't make any sense
a/a=1 is a convention, not a natural number law, but 0 is an exception to it.

>>5943790
>I just defined it bitch. You are in the face of new science here.

Mathematical conventions are not related to science at all.

Mathematical conventions are agreed upon by thousands of experts; your own ability is limited to the context of a paper you write.
The paper needs to make sense; doesn't have to be groundbreaking, but simply publishing statements is not enough.
Please, do not bring /b/-type behavior (declarations of BS, trolling, childish behavior, nonsense, pointless posting, ridiculous statements) to /sci/ -- it's different here.

>>5943833
>In fact, it's very likely that the fuzziness is centerded around 1.
>Notice that if a = b the number will be approaching 1.

Wait -- stop here.

First, there is no likelihood 'described' by a/b at all.
Its value can be nearly anything, as OP said, in the range of values.
There are no tendencies of any kind.

Second, if a = b, then the value is EXACTLY 1 -- it doesn't 'approach' 1, and there is no variance.

>>5943858
>A weird postulation this may produce is that if that 'anything' has a tendency to be closer to 1 rather that infinities then it might point towards why physical objects tend to not be infinite.

Complete, utter, stoner bullshit.

Number tendencies are abstracted; they have nothing to do with matter states or physical reality or natural law.
The statements above do NOT have any tendencies, do not tend toward 1, and there is no connection offered to real physicality.

>>5943886
>I don't think I'm a genious (sic)
You are a fucking high schooler, regurgitating clumsy, poorly worded, less than rigorous versions of known math

>>5943870
>Yeah.. I didn't reach 0/0 = E(1) from 0 x E = 0, the latter was just mentioned. I started with a/b with a,b approaching zero independently.
Since neither a nor b is being acted upon by a function, they cannot be 'approaching' anything.
It sounds like you are imagining a function on them, where their values have a tendency to become (either) low or their difference becomes low -- but you haven't got a function that does that.
And, even with that function, you could only be making a statement about the ratio of those values to zero in the context of that function -- you wouldn't be saying anything about the 0/0 convention, notation in general, nor about the way 0 is used in any calculation.
(That is, you'd be using the notation, not defining it or learning anything about more-general cases.)

>>5943873
>Keep being a plebian that sucks the cock of old science and never accept new ideas.

You misunderstood him;
he isn't refusing to accept new ideas.

He is evaluating your statements, in the context you asked for.

He is also correct; you made wrong conclusions.
0/0 is undefined, it makes no sense, and we learn nothing examining it.

>>5944488
agreed, OP is basically stumbling toward L'Hopital's rule, while throwing in some porrly defined probability about the nature of f(x) and g(x)

>>5944497
>0/0 is undefined, it makes no sense, and we learn nothing examining it.
this is wrong, as anyone who has done college level math knows

>>5943892
>You're a moronic shit, that not only it is possible with numbers that tend to infinity or zero, it is in high school books.

of course it is in high-school books; it is simple.
And those books give the 0/0 ratio as 'undefined' -- everywhere.

Now, once more, in case you aren't getting it:
number values do NOT 'tend' toward anything if no function is being applied.
(You get a tendency only when a variable's value is revealed from a function)

And yes, a/b can be described in many contexts, but it doesn't mean anything about 0, as zero cannot be used in the denominator.

Note that; it CANNOT be used in the denominator. Any such ratio just doesn't have meaning.

>>5944508
So you haven't heard of, for example, the Reimann sphere, where 0/0 is defined.

>>5943920
>What a mongoloid.
Definitely doesn't mean what you think it means.

>The concept is right there on the OP and he tries to say there is no concept.
No, there is no concept in the OP statement.
He sets up an analysis, leaves out critical parts, and made a statement hinting at a conclusion.
And then, another conclusion unrelated in every way, somehow.

It reads like a stoner trying to work something out.

>this thread

>>5944514
it is not defined there, it is defined in wheel theory though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory

>>5944514
>So you haven't heard of, for example, the Reimann sphere, where 0/0 is defined.

That is what is called 'context' -- where specific properties, values, and principles are a bit different from the generalized and abstract.
Higher math does it a lot, because simple arithmetic is inarguable and established.

I did not write anywhere that math cannot have OTHER contexts.
I only wrote that OP did not create one, and did not apply any function, so that his statements would have value.

>>5944522
Of course he didn't create anything new, but your insistence that 0/0 is not worth examining is patently retarded.

He is first line uses the word "tend", so the obvious thing educate him about is limits. Tell him "it's not worth examining" and you've basically stifled his curiosity.

Nice going faggot.

>>5943782
the base 0 in base 10 is base 4

Why do you think this can be addressed simply?

>>5944526
>Of course he didn't create anything new, but your insistence that 0/0 is not worth examining is patently retarded.
>He is first line uses the word "tend", so the obvious thing educate him about is limits. Tell him "it's not worth examining" and you've basically stifled his curiosity.

Ok, let me say it differently:
there is nothing to inspect, analyze, or challenge.
we know what zero is, we know what a ratio is
you cannot divide any value (even if it is zero) into zero parts -- it's a nonsense statement.
So, we do not define any value in it.

Every other part of his statements has more worth -- the idea of tendency in a simple function with a ratio, for instance. The places in QM where such limits might relate inverse proportions, certainly. Maybe even number theory relating incrementally small or large ratios.

But not 0/0 -- there is no depth to it, nothing more to examine.

>>5944566
There is nothing more to examine about 1/2 either. We know what 1 is and what 2 is and what a ratio is.

>you cannot divide any value (even if it is zero) into zero parts -- it's a nonsense statement.

appeals to intuition are not sound math. division is formally defined in various ways, many of which, but not all, leave 0/0 as undefined. not as "nonsense".

the obvious thing to examine is extensions of the system of numbers that don't leave 0/0 undefined. Wheel theory, for instance.

>>5944529
> 0.00...001

>>5944586
>There is nothing more to examine about 1/2 either. We know what 1 is and what 2 is and what a ratio is.
EXACTLY true.
But, my example wasn't of discrete values, it was of variables applied to a function.
Do you see how that might provide a little more analysis?

>>you cannot divide any value (even if it is zero) into zero parts -- it's a nonsense statement.
>appeals to intuition are not sound math.
No, but logic and established rules of math are sound math.
The reason a zero cannot be in the denominator is the one above, literally. It was not an original or intuited definition, and I did not need to appeal with it.

>division is formally defined in various ways, many of which, but not all, leave 0/0 as undefined. not as "nonsense".
You seem to be thinking of other contexts, because it is very definitely undefined (because it is nonsensical) in general context.

>the obvious thing to examine is extensions of the system of numbers that don't leave 0/0 undefined. Wheel theory, for instance.
Neither is an electric wheelchair allowed on freeways, unless you change the context.
Yes, obviously there can be other contexts (establishing different rules from general arithmetic) that handle it differently.

Do you really not see that there is a general case, and that definitions are applied by context?
I am not the one who looks petulant and difficult here.

ITT: highschoolers beeing trolled by other highschoolers

>>5943782
>That also shows why 0 x Anything = 0

Good troll up until this point.

>>5943886
>I post for peer reviewing
>yells at peers for reviewing his shit and concluding it is in fact shit

All right /sci/, I'm going to write up an infopic on HS-level BS like this, including why .9999... = 1, why dividing by 0 is undefined, etc. Any suggestions on the font style?

ITT: How easy is to troll /sci/

>>5944926
What do you believe qualifies you to make such an infographic?

>>5944926
Why would you ever do that?
It wont make any difference, both of those are troll topics not actual questions.
Nothing will stop them

>>5944940
Because I know the actual, mathematically accepted answers and can explain them coherently (as I have done countless times already on /sci/).

>>5944950
So I don't have to keep repeating myself (see above). Then people can just post it and everyone can become educated.

>>5944985
>So I don't have to keep repeating myself (see above).
Well you shouldn't be replying to trolls in the first place. You are almost as bad of a cancer as the trolls themselves.
You understand how trolling works right?

>>5944985
What are the "the actual, mathematically accepted answers"? Post them.

>>5945010
He's probably even worse than trolls because he's a pseudo-intellectual who memorized some flawed explanation or a shitty appeal to intuition aimed at primary school children and mistakes it for rigorous math.

I bet his explanation for the impossibility of dividing by zero does not use abstract algebra but some retard argument like "distribute a cake among zero persons - it maeks no sense lol".

>>5945013
k... this, this I lol'd at

btw >>5944985
> >>5945013
>captcha has a quesrtion

>>5945013
I'll create the infopic and post it later.

>>5945031
Actually, my explanation is that in a nontrivial ring due to the distributive law, 0*r = 0 for all r in the ring R, implying that there exists no multiplicative inverse for 0 in R. I would then proceed to talk about constructions where one can "divide" by 0 but not in the traditional sense.

So why don't you step off your own pseudo-intellectual horse because you passed babby's first algebra and give others a chance. Not everyone here is retarded.

>>5945045
>Not everyone here is retarded.

>>5944529
>>5944597
Why are these not being addressed?

>>5945062
Well our genious is working on his infograph

To think that in literally thousands of threads about these things there hasn't been a single solution provided.
To think that every thread has been 200 post circlejerk about finding a saviour to reveal the truth

Because hes the hero /sci/ deserves.

>>5945072

>>5945093
I mean if only there was some proof, some solid math, something that would explain this problem...

I guess we will never know the true answer...

the way I read the OP, as soon as I got to 2., I thought he was saying that 0≠0, which would mean that x≠x, and that 1≠1

heres another way of thinking
instead of thinking of 0 as an amount, think of 0 as nothing

x/2, x ≠0
x is divided into two equal parts
x/1
x is "divided" into one equal part, which results in nothing happening to it
x/(1/2)
the original value is made so that one half of it is equal to the original value, it actually isn't divided at all, its multiplied by two

on a somewhat related note, I'd like to be able to think that division by non-zero non-negative numbers that are less than 1 doesn't happen, and that what happens instead is multiplication

x/0
x is divided into nothing or 0 equal parts*; for me, the idea of ceasing to exist comes to mind for some reason

0/2
nothing is divided into two equal parts, you aren't dividing the idea of there being nothing into two absences of an equal volume where there isn't anything, you're just not dividing anything because there isn't anything to divide

you aren't dividing an absence in half by putting a big wooden board there to represent a boundary

0/0
you're dividing nothing
into no equal parts*
because there aren't any parts to be divided to begin with

the only way you can divide an absence of something is by putting a boundary in the absence, which would mean that the result would be the divisor if you were measuring how much divisor there is, but you're actually measuring what the divisor divides, so when you measure whats between the boundaries you get nothing

>>5945117
x/2; x≠0
divide x into two equal parts

x/1
divide x into one equal part
but it already is one equal part
oh okay lol

x/0
divide x into 0 equal parts;
and no, that doesn't mean make the parts unequal to eachother*
*i really don't know what to think about this, but it sounds like a copout to me
AND
_
.01 repeating isn't 0, 0 is 0; thats like saying something is nothing, and that .9 repeating=1 when .9 repeating is not absolutely the same as 1

if you just get rid of what is divided entirely, there aren't any equal parts because there aren't any parts at all, and the objective of dividing x so that there aren't any equal parts is completed; this could be called a copout by some

2/1
how many 1s are in 2?
there are two 1s in 2

1/2
how many 2s are in 1?
there is half of a 2 in 1

2/0
how many 0s are in 2?
there aren't infinite 0s in 2 because no matter how many 0s there are, if you add all the 0s together its still gonna be 0, and if you have infinity of those and you add those together and multiply it by infinity to the infinity, you'll still have 0
you cannot have enough 0s to create two, it is simply cannot be done with 0s alone, you need to have a value there
the amount of 0s that can be in 2 ranges from -infinity to infinity because if you add 0 to a number you aren't adding anything to it
how do you divide a number if there isn't anything to divide by?
how do you put something in a container if there isn't anything to put in it?
how do you mow the lawn if there isn't a lawn to be mowed?

saying 0/0 is like saying divide something that doesn't exist by 0, and even if it did, you don't have anything to do it with

>>5945072
What are some topics that need addressing aside from division by 0 and .9999...?

>>5945132
consciousness

>>5945123
>.01 repeating isn't 0, 0 is 0; thats like saying something is nothing, and that .9 repeating=1 when .9 repeating is not absolutely the same as 1

.9 repeating equals one becasue .9 repeating doesn't exist but is actually another way of saying one,
I suppose the same to be true for .01 repeating it doesn't exist becasue it is the same as 0.

Plug .01 repeating = 0 into your 0/0 formula and see if that gives you the universe

>>5945132
>What are some topics that need addressing aside from division by 0 and .9999...?

the Eilenberg–Ganea conjecture

>>5945138
do you have any idea how obvious your trolling would be if you weren't dealing with .9 repeating and 1?

regardless, .0 repeating1 is something
0 isnt something
its like saying that x≠x
its like saying that 2+2≠2+2

>>5945158
if .9 repeating is real than find a single fraction for it

>>5945136
Not math.

>>5945144
I meant commonly posted on /sci/.

>>5945167
troll pi

>>5945172
This isn't really an issue on /sci/, I think.

>>5945218
You think wrong.

>>5945123
>>>
> Anonymous 08/03/13(Sat)06:06 No.5943790Replies: >>5943829 >>5944480
>>>5943785
>I just defined it bitch. You are in the face of new science here.
>Believe it.
dividing by zero means dividing by nothing, thus you can either not divide the number, i.e. 1/0=1, or you can say that there are no zeroes in it, i.e. 1/0=0, if you choose to divide by zero you should show both answers as either a theoretic answer ar theoretic scenarios, until the mathematics community accepts the argument

>>5945332

>>5945357
Well

Zero is an operator. You can't divide by plus either.

>>5945408

>>5945408
You can divide by operators as long as the spectrum is invertible.

>I wonder if it has Quantum Mechanical implications.

I'm sure it has.

Ok let's see...

2/1
How many one's does it take to make a 2?
Well 2: 1+1=2

0/0.
How many zeroes are needed for it to become zero.Well..."any" amount.
Problem is, this makes 0/0 a non-number.

Usually this would be labeled as undefined by mathematics since there are an infinite amount of solutions - hence there is no solution.

What the Op wishes to describe is simply a number that describes a range of numbers.
Which does not make sense unfortunately since every number can only be equal to itself.

Therefore 0/0 is not a number.

Personally i also do not like the label "undefined" in mathematics for this "thing", and it would be nice if there would be a new definition to be made for this "thing"

>>5947840

except you're wrong

you can use an infinite amount of 1s to get a 2:

1*1*1*1....*1 + 1*1^1/1 + 1/1....*1+.999...*.9999... = 2

>>5947856
>you can use an infinite amount of 1s to get a 2

>>5945163
infinity nines over a 1 that has infinite 0s after it

repeating numbers are defined after everything else is and all at the same time