/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8097666

0/0 = 1
0x/0x = 1
x/0x = 1*0
then 1/0 = 0
and 2/0 = 0

1/0=2/0
therefore 1=2

>>8097666
Satan trips don't lie.

0/5=0
0/4=0
0/4=0
0/2=0
0/0=?

>>8097666
checked

-5/5=-1
-4/4=-1
-3/3=-1
-2/2=-1
-1/1=-1
0/0=-1

>>8097675
0/0 = 1
0x/0x = 1
>x/0x = 1*0 how'd you get to this step if 0*0 = 0 ...? 0(0x/0x) = 0(1) implies that 0x/0x = 0
then 1/0 = 0
and 2/0 = 0

>>8097666
>>>/b/

>>8097705
>>>lgbt

Instead I'll prove that's it's plausible
Y=aX
Y/X=a for any x and y combination that was on the initial line
Therefore 0/0=a
0/0 can be anything depending on the slope you approach it with, that's why it's indeterminate, because it can take ANY value, including 1.

8/4=2
4/2=1
0/0=0

QED

you're all morons

0 and infinity aren't numbers.

0 is a constant and infinity is a variable.

>>8097750
>0 isn't a number
Nice one

>>8097750
when is a number not constant?

>this thread
Everyone is wrong. % = 1/100.

>>8097839
I don't disagree with that breathtaking unveil, but who the fuck are you responding to.

2/4 = 2 * 1/4
1/2 = 1 * 1/2
0/0 = 0 * 1/0

>>8097841
This thread.

>>8097836
when it's a function.
[math] \mathbb{R} \subset (\mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{Q}) / \equiv [/math]

>>8097750
>0 is a constant and infinity is a variable
wat
0 is a number

infinity is the size of any group closed under the binary operation a*b = a+b

do u even math, bro?

ass

>>8097750
>0 is a constant and infinity is a variable
wat
0 is a number

infinity is the size of any group closed under the binary operation a*b = a+b

do u even math, bro?

>>8097848
>>8097858
???

>>8097861
0 is a number because it obeys the properties of real numbers: if you take 0 + a, you get a. If a =/= 0 then 0+a =/= 0.

infinity is not a number because infinity + a = infinity for any number a. Infinity is used to define the size of obnoxiously large sets (like the whole numbers).

One way of defining this size is to say the collection of all numbers such that for any a and b a+b is also in the set. You can create a unitary set {0} and 0+0 is in the set, but this isn't infinite. So we say that for any a+b where a=/=b, then a+b is in the set, then the size of the set is infinity.

0/0=Φ Nullity
1/0=∞
0/1=∞

http://www.a-cubed.info/Publications/PerspexMachineVIII.pdf

>>8097868
I mean, I understand what you're saying, but why did you make the same post twice?

>>8097879
browser froze. when it unfroze there were two

>>8097872

>>8097872
no one cares how floats work

>>8097872
So ∞*∞ = (0/1)*(1/0)= (1/1)*(0/0) = 1*Φ?

>>8097896
Which is why these "equalities" only work in one direction. Which is why this system is useless bullshit for everything except floating point. Which is why
>>8097889
>>8097890

If you get 0/0, you need L'hospital's rule to find the real limit.

>>8097913
One should not have to use special case differentials to get an arithmetic result.

>>8097903
Ah. I'm not seeing how they'd be useful for floating point, but w/e

>>8097666
We have the axiom that for all [math]a \in \mathbb{C}[/math], [eqn]0 \times a = 0.[/eqn] Observe that if we have [eqn]a \times {1 \over a} = 1,[/eqn] letting [math]a = 0[/math] gives us [eqn]0 \times {1 \over 0} = 1.[/eqn] Suppose that [math]b = {1 \over 0} \in \mathbb C[/math]. Then we get [eqn]0 \times b = 1.[/eqn] This is a contradiction to our earlier axiom.

So there is no complex number [math]b[/math] (and therefore real number by extension since [math]\mathbb{R} \subset \mathbb{C}[/math]) such that [math]0 \times b = 1[/math] (That is, [math]0[/math] has no multiplicative inverse in [math]\mathbb{C} [/math])

>>8097979
but proof by contradiction is a meme

>>8097919
>math should be different than it is
No one cares what you feel.

>>8097921
Because ~nullity~ is basically error state equivalent to NaN, the wiki page for this shitty system draws a direct 1-to-1 comparison, be less lazy.

>>8097980
No one cares what you feel either.

>>8097868
I'm not quite sure I follow your construction there. You said 0 was in the set and the set is closed under addition. That's not necessarily infinite. It's could just have zero in it.

This is not the standard construction of the inductive set.

>>8097666
0/3 = 0
0/2 = 0
0/1 = 0
0/0 = 0
and
3/0 = infinity
2/0 = infinity
1/0 = infinity
0/0 = infinity

>>8098003
>No one cares what you feel.
It was a statement about the elegance/logical integrity of the axiomatic system.

Why use a system that makes me swat a fly with a sledgehammer?

>>8097666
indeed, the limit as x goes to zero of x/x is 1.

Did you know that the limit as x goes to zero of 2x/x is 2?

Did you further know that the limit as x goes to zero of x/(x^3) is infinity?

Really makes you think.

>>8098092
It's undefined not infinity you brainlet

>>8098025
> So we say that for any a+b where a=/=b, then a+b is in the set, then the size of the set is infinity.

So if we're saying a=/=b, then we're saying our "seed" set has at least two elements. Because the identity for any binary operation is unique this set has three operations (assuming commutative): a*b = a b*b = b and a*a = ???

To preserve closure under the operation, we say a*a = c but then we find a*c = ???

This goes on until you've got a set isomorphic with the whole numbers. You can also show this works for any set with a binary operation and two specified elements.

>This is not the standard construction of the inductive set.

I figured, I learned this from one of my favorite professors and I like it better than any of the others I've heard.

>>8098106
I was making a rhetorical point.

>>8097666
Say Johnny has two oranges and wants to share with pondu. Johnny takes two oranges and splits them between two people. 1 orange for each person say Johnny has nothing and wants to share it with nobody. Not even himself because he doesn't exist. There is nothing there.

>>8097666
That's not what my calculator says.

>>8098339
forgot pic

>>8098129
You're a brainlet that doesn't know basic anatomy

>>8098341
nan-defined ?

>>8098129
You're a brainlet that doesn't know basic math

>>8098129
uhuh, sure thing. not damage control at all.

>>8098349
>>8098350
Boy look at the quality of /sci/ these days. Can never be sure if it's bait or the average visitor is actually a twelve year old with zero reading comprehension.

>>8098106
division by any number is perfectly
well-defined, you retard
division by zero is indeterminate
because it can't be done

>>8098354
with Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH you can be sure it's the latter.

>>8098354
Thanks. It's ok. Don't worry about it.

>>8098344
not a number, dumbass.

>>8097666
[eqn] \lim _{ x \to 0 } \frac { x } { x } [/eqn] So clearly 0/0 = 1.

0/1 = 0
0/2 = 0
0/3 = 0
0/4 = 0
0/5 = 0
0/0 = wat

>>8098452
[eqn]\lim_{x \to 0} \frac{x}{x} = \lim_{x \to 0} \frac{2x}{x} = \lim_{x \to 0} \frac{3x}{x} = ... \\
\lim_{x \to 0} \frac{x}{x} = \lim_{x \to 0} \frac{x^2}{x} = \lim_{x \to 0} \frac{x^3}{x} = ...[/eqn]

>>8098469
Literally all wrong. [eqn] \lim _{ x \to 0 } \frac { 2 x } { x } =2 [/eqn] As you'd expect if 0/0 =1

>>8098683
Exactly, yet all tend to 0/0 as x approaches 0.

So you can't just say 0/0 = 1 because I can just as easily say that 0/0 = 2 or 3 or whatever.

>>8098118
I don't think thats right about your closure.

It says IF a =/= b, then a+b is in the set.

This does not imply there are at least two elements. It doesn't say that there exist at least two elements. You can't say that just because you have a rule that requires two elements that you somehow have two elements.

>>8097666
Nothing is nothing.

>>8097666

>>8098683
What about the limit of x^2/x? Surely that tends to 0/0 but it also tends to 0? Oh wait, I guess you could distinguish 0^2/0 from 0/0, saying that 0^2/0=0*0/0=0*1=0.

0/0 SHOULD be equal to 1 but due to some inconsistencies in math they had to make an exception to the rule to fit other rules and so on.

>>8098738
Ok.
Let a,b be real numbers in S, such that a=/=b. If we require S to be closed under addition, then |S| = aleph null.

>>8097740
What about y=ax+c

>>8097747
kek