/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7533004
>If you share 1 cake with 0 people you keep 1 cake


But you didn't divide it properly. That analogy doesn't work.

This is now a /sci/ Cena thread.

BOO POODOO BOOOOO BOO POODOO BOOOOO BOO POODOO BOOOOO BOO POODOO BOOOOO

>>7533012
How do you divide something with no people?

>>7533004
<span class="math"> \lim_{x \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}^{x} [/spoiler]

<span class="math"> \lim_{x \rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{x} [/spoiler]

>>7533014
That the thing, you can't give it a real world analogy.

BOO POODOO BOOOOOOOO!

>>7533004
>implying infinite is a number
If 1/0 = infinite and 2/0=infinite, then 1=2 then 1+1=1

>>7533047
>Implying mathematicians don't already consistently throw out logical axioms, such as a number only being equivalent to itself.
0.99 ...= 1

Because anon, if mathematicians made their practice seem simple and logical, those precious few jobs they can hold now would seize to exist.

This is why you get infinite when you try to share 1 cake with 0 people. They are just being contrarian.

>>7533087
Those are decimal representations, which aren't necessarily unique

>>7533105
>seize
maybe you need to consult an english professor more urgently than insulting mathematicians

>>7533004
>If you divide 1 cake with half a person, you keep 1 cake

1/0 is undefined

>>7533121
It can be difined to be infinity, and for negative numbers negative infinity. Still inf/inf and 0/0 can't be defined unambigiously. :^)

>>7533004
It's not infinite, if you approach from 0- it's negative and 0+ it's positive, meaning it is intederminate

>>7533141
and in any system where division by zero is defined you have to throw out the field axioms.

for example, if you want to axiomatize that a multiplicative inverse exists for all elements on a given ring, you can either throw out zero, in which case you just hocked the additive identity, or you can define division by zero, then you get other divisors that behave like zero, and a lot of division is undefined.

In either case you're not working in a field anymore, which is bad.

>>7533020
...does not exist.

1/0 isn't infinity, its undefined. Now the limit as x approaches 0 from the positive side of 1/x is infinity (negative side is negative infinity). Basic calculus.

>>7533204
Stay in school kids

>>7533203
>>7533121
Saying it is undefined is the same as saying that you don't know. Why don't you just say that you don't know and be done with it?

>>7533258
perhaps you meant the limit of x^(-2), friend

>>7533004
Whenever this has ever happened in class, the professor either says "no", or "indeterminate"

>>7533004
>>7533047
>>7533741
>>7533770

Hey, /sci/ here...
Please stop posting

>>7533203
>and in any system where division by zero is defined you have to throw out the field axioms
What about the trivial field < ; ^)

>>7533087
pic is for you faggot

>>7533004
it's not infinite, merely undefined
>>7533204
see pic

>>7533004
More like, if 0 people share a cake between them then the answer is undefined as there are no people to share the cake.

>>7533014
Thow it away?

>>7533004
you divided it by 1 not 0
kek

>>7533822
Nice meme picture.

Now why don't you go back to reddit and let the big boys talk.

>>7533004
but op if u divided cake among all of infinitesimally small number of people theoretically then u would have infinite small cake slices ;o

>>7533014
>>7533004

Do you realize that dividing be 0 would be that you'd be dividing something in an empty room in that analogy? as in, "you" aren't even there to give the cake out to nobody/keep it

>>7534165
but it has 2 b positive number of people

Haha but no Mr Retard!

If you keep the cake then you have divided it by 1, that being yourself.

Golly Gee Winklers! What a hoot!

>>7533912
>Big boys
>Not big guys
Kill yourself faggot

>>7533004
Oh the analogy is fine you are just looking at it wrong. If you have one whole cake and you decide to give it out in increments of zero, then you would have a hard time finding enough people to give it out to.

Because your cake would never run out. Meaning the amount of people you need would be hard to define... it would be a non-finite number. Infinite!

>>7533004
Why am I replying... Oh well, lemme take a shot.

Infinite as a result of 1/0 is more of a concept than it is a number. It's exactly why 1/0 is undefined, the result isn't something that can be defined by numbers.

Think about what 1/0 is for a second. Since division is just however many times you have to subtract the divisor from the dividend until you reach 0, imagine what 1/0 is. It's just 1-0 until you reach 0, but obviously you'll never reach it. This can't be defined in conventional ways, so for the sake of having an answer, you could say its infinite. In reality though, its more undefined than anything else.

Here is the best way to see it, when you divide you are breaking it up into pieces, you have a cake and are slicing it into pieces.
So 1/4 is saying you have a cake and are slicing it into 4 pieces.
Now here is the big difference between infinity and undefined.
Consider e=mc^2
Mass can be converted into energy, but never destroyed (splitting an atom converts the mass in an enormous amount of energy)
So saying you want 0 parts is asking to cut the cake into 0 pieces, or essentially destroy the matter.
This is undefined because it is not possible.
Now as you go approach the limit of zero, you are cutting it into an infinite amount of pieces, the total mass still exists, its just in many, many different, equal, pieces.

>>7533004
Look man, if you take 1 and divide it by nothing (0)
well you haven't actually divided it.
Infinity is a concept, not an actual number.

>>7533047
There are infinities of different sizes though. Also, calling something infinity makez info dissappear. The size of the set of natural numbers is infinity, the size of the natural nimbers except for 42 is also infinity. That doesn't mean infinity-infinity=1

Misusing infinity doesn't mean it doesn't exist.