/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10502886]

Non math layman here. Why can’t you divide by zero?

[Anonymous No.10502897]

>>10502886
It's nonsense. Like flavorless flavor.

Zero is a placeholder to indicate nothing. It can't do anything because it is a symbol to represent absence.

[Anonymous No.10502900]

0/0 = x
0 = 0x

X could be any value so it doesn’t make sense

[Anonymous No.10502903]

>>10502886
It is not defined, and coming up with a useful definition that isn't weird doesn't really matter to anyone.

[Anonymous No.10502906]

>>10502886
It's using circular logic. It's like claiming 0^0 = 1, yeah x^x approaches 1 as x approaches 0, but you can't take nothing to the power of nothing and get something. You're only saying that if you could apply the same logic as other numbers to 0, you would get 1. It's on the same tier as saying the sum of all reals = -1/12

[Anonymous No.10502909]

>>10502886
because it doesn’t have a well-defined answer. if you do it, you can get multiple equally correct answers that disagree with one another.

here’s an example. the limit of 1/x as x goes to 0 diverges to positive infinity. but positive infinity is identical to positive infinity+1. so then 1/0=1/0+1. in other words if you set it to any real number, you necessarily have contradictions in your arithmetic

[Anonymous No.10502910]

>>10502886
>You can't divide by zero
Debunked.
>>10502897
>>10502900
>>10502903
t. deniers

[Anonymous No.10502911]

>>10502886
Let's say you want to eat two out of zero apples. Can you do that?
2 apples / 0 apples
Since there are no apples, you cannot. Like these anons said:
>>10502897
>>10502903
Zero is not a defined number.

[Anonymous No.10502912]

>>10502886
I'm not a math major, but I'll give it a shot...

One of the many reasons why you can't divide by zero is that you end up with contradictions.

If 1*0 = 0, and 2*0 = 0
Then 1*0 = 2*0, so far so good
If dividing by zero were allowed, then 1*0/0 = 2*0/0
The zeroes cancels out and you get 1 = 2
Obviously this can't be true, so the conclusion we can make from this is that dividing by zero must be impossible.

[Anonymous No.10502914]

>>10502911
>Zero is not a defined number.
That's a better way to describe it. In laymaneese, technically zero is and is not a number. We use it in number systems, but it does not act like any other number due to what it defines.

[Anonymous No.10502916]

>>10502886
cause its not a thing, you are dividing by nothing

[Anonymous No.10502917]

>>10502910
i'm so glad i can read that

[Anonymous No.10502918]

>>10502910
I can't read what's on the board dude, how can I deny something I don't even know?
Plus it's not even a matter of "debunking" if you are saying you defined x/0 in some consistent way good for you, what structure are you getting from that, what is the motivation, and how does it not cause contradiction with everything else we use and know?

[Anonymous No.10502919]

>>10502912
actually this is a very good explanation, considering it’s coming from a non-math-major

[Anonymous No.10502923]

>>10502910
>t. retard youtube schizo

[Anonymous No.10502924]

sin(0)/0 = 1

Mathlets btfo

[Anonymous No.10502930]

>>10502924
no, you’re retarded. l’hopital’s rule doesn’t work like that

[Anonymous No.10502932]

>>10502924
That’s the limit of sin(x)/x when x approaches 0, the actual answer is undefined

[Anonymous No.10502933]

>>10502886
Pro tip, you can. It's settled science.
https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/zero--a-maths-hero-4260256
>>10502910
This anon gets it.

[Anonymous No.10502944]

>>10502932
The limit exists from both directions, therefore f(0) = lim x->0 f(x).
>>10502930
There's nothing to derive, the function's output is defined at that value.

[Anonymous No.10502945]

>>10502886
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2z5uzqxJNU

[Anonymous No.10502948]

>>10502897
Retard, then why is addition and multiplication by 0 defined

[Anonymous No.10502975]

>>10502948
1*0
one, times added to the result: zero.

[Anonymous No.10502979]

>>10502948
>>10502975
Multiplication is a variant of summation. Adding nothing to a null gives null.

[Anonymous No.10502991]

>>10502945
Based Woo poster

[Anonymous No.10502992]

>>10502886
>Why can’t you divide by zero?
What makes you think you can't?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory

[Anonymous No.10503002]

>>10502944
no it’s not, and no, the symbol 0 does not imply taking any limit. numbers aren’t little moving train engines
http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sin%280%29%2F0

[Anonymous No.10503013]

>>10503002
Logically, sin(0)/0 would output 1. The only reason it doesn't is because you say so. What should I trust? The logical output of a function based on algebraic rules? Or you, because you say so?

[Anonymous No.10503033]

>>10502944
You can only say f(0) = lim x->0 f(x) if f(x) is continuous at x=0 (it's the definition of continuity). If the limit exists from both directions, then we can conclude that the limit exists, that the limit is the same as we found from both sides, and that's it.

[Anonymous No.10503038]

>>10503013
because division by zero needs to be undefined to keep math from giving ambiguous or contradictory answers. it is not logical to ignore the “divide by zero” rule in the case of sin(0)/0 and it only makes sense if you change the question to be about limits, which do not appear or are implied in the original questions

[Anonymous No.10503111]

>if the limit exists then the value exists

oh no no no

[Anonymous No.10503117]

>>10502897
Handwaving nonsense.

>>10502900
Assumes 0/0*0=0 without justification.

>>10502912
In order for the 0s to cancel out, 0/0 must be a real number. If 0/0 is infinity then your argument fails.

>>10502914
>>10502916
False.

>>10502924
False.

[Anonymous No.10503121]

>>10503117
>If 0/0 is infinity
literally the dumbest option for what 0/0 could be

[Anonymous No.10503132]

1 / 0.1 = 10
1 / 0.01 = 100
1 / 0.00001 = 100000

Notice how we're approaching infinity the smaller we go?

[Anonymous No.10503147]

>>10503117
b8

[Anonymous No.10503187]

>>10502911
>zero
>not a defined number
>t. engineer

[Anonymous No.10503192]

>>10503132
1 / -0.1 = -10
1 / -0.01 = -100
1 / -0.00001 = -100000

Notice how we're approaching minus infinity the smaller we go?

[Anonymous No.10503220]

>>10502886
Dividing by 0 gives you only a remainder, which can't be expressed in numbers.
It's impossible to group data into a non-group, which is what the operation of dividing by zero is attempting to do.

[Anonymous No.10503298]

>>10502910
>Debunked by thumbnail
L0Lno fgt pls

[Anonymous No.10503304]

>>10503132
>>10503192
Pro tip: They are both true so a number divide by zero should be ±inf

[Anonymous No.10503369]

>>10502886
because every number multiplied by zero is zero
x/0 = y --> 0y = x = 0

[Anonymous No.10503374]

Turn the division (x/0 = y) into a multiplication (y * 0 = x).

You have to multiply something with zero, in order to get something other than zero.

You can't do that, bruv.

[Anonymous No.10503385]

>>10502932
That is not true at all. Ever heard of the small angle approximation such that sin(x) = x where x is in radians? However, one thing you must understand is that you can only make that approximation once and you must do carefully. It turns out to not be difficult at all because sine is an odd function( sin(-x) = -sin(x) and this causes -sin(x)/-x = sin(x)/x ). Thus x is symmetric about zero. Now another thing you can say that at x=0, this x is considered small enough to just spit out whatever value is input.
Wait did I say you can make small angle approximation once? Yes, but you have to realize that as you get closer and closer to x=0, the values cancel out. But they don't cancel out proportionally. Actually the argument is that sin(x) = x-f(c) where f is a function of a constant. Another thing, f(c) is smaller than x, always and I believe this has been proven. So when you divide by x, you end up with 1-f(c)/x. This leads to a value smaller than one by small angle approximation. As f(c) gets closer and closer to zero, the value vanishes meaning that you no longer quantify sin(x) = x+f(c) when you get to zero, you simply say that here you admit that x is the smallest value you will actually have neglecting the negative values which is just a quality of odd functions. So you pick this point to be the small angle approximation, sin(0)=0 there is no doubt there at all. Then you just say sin(x)/x = x/x at some point. SMA is simply a byproduct of triangles, and although not quite as mathematically sound as some laws, it is a very truthful assumption.

[Anonymous No.10503552]

Imagine cutting this lovely cake into 8 equal pieces. Now try cutting it into 0 equal pieces.

[Anonymous No.10503557]

>>10503369
so u can do it

[Anonymous No.10503575]

>>10502886
Because division is the inverse function of multiplication, i.e. a/b = x iff a = bx. For nonzero a there is no number x such that a = 0x, so it does not make sense to say a/0 is a number. For a zero a, any x makes a = 0x true, so a/0 cannot correspond to a single number.

[Anonymous No.10503681]

>>10503552
I split the cake in half, then into quarters a half second later, then into eighths a quart second after that, etc. After 1 second the cake has disappeared and is in 0 pieces.

[Anonymous No.10503701]

>>10503681
It's not in 0 pieces it's in an infinite amount of pieces

[Anonymous No.10503712]

>>10503552
That's basically saying "dont cut this cake".

[Anonymous No.10503725]

>>10502886
>you can't take the square root of a negative number you idiot
okay, invent i
>you can't divide by zero you idiot
okay, invent o

[Anonymous No.10503729]

>>10503712
Not cutting the cake is dividing it by one.
There is no way to do any action that somehow makes it a "zero" cut or something

[Anonymous No.10503930]

>>10502886
Think about it this way when dividing you are splitting the number evenly into groups for example 9 put into 3 groups evenly would have 3 in each group, when you try to divide by zero you are splitting it into zero groups, which is impossible. Hope this helps

[Anonymous No.10503953]

>>10503725
>invent o
already done, except it’s called zero-hat

[Anonymous No.10503970]

>>10502886
> Why can’t you divide by zero?
Because we are brainlets and haven't figured out how to make it work yet.
/thread

[Anonymous No.10503982]

>>10502912
unironically one of the stronger intuitions itt

>>10502886
also this >>10502992

[Anonymous No.10504095]

>>10503552
I'd like 0.5 pieces, thanks.

[Anonymous No.10504097]

>>10503187
>speaking in the most layman sort of way
>t. common sense

[Anonymous No.10504124]

>>10503552
Imagine cutting a cake into 5/7 pieces.
Imagine cutting a cake into -8.4 pieces.
Imagine cutting a cake into I*sqrt(pi) pieces.

Guess you can't divide by anything that's not a positive integer.

[Anonymous No.10504312]

>>10504124
retard

[Anonymous No.10504483]

>>10502886

Try to do it as long division on paper, and you'll see.

[Anonymous No.10504521]

>>10502886
You can; it gives you infinity

[Anonymous No.10504524]

>>10504521

positive infinity or negative infinity?

[Anonymous No.10504526]

>>10504524
Hmm good point idk

[Anonymous No.10504539]

>>10502886
because there can never be two zeros in the universe because the universe is zero.
The zeros would dissolve into each other.
two ones would stack but two zeros would just be zero mate.

[Anonymous No.10504546]

zero does not exist in the physical reality but the physical reality is folded over it.
Because we live in the physical reality zero can not exist thus it cannot be manipulated in any fashion because its not there.

[Anonymous No.10504549]

mathematics is an absolute science.
Meaning that if you want zero to be dividable you will have to make your own science.
Not sure how well that would work out for you

[Anonymous No.10504550]

[Anonymous No.10504559]

How can maths be real if zero isn't real

[Anonymous No.10504564]

>>10502897
So you can't divide by the term (5 minus 5) for example?

[Anonymous No.10504567]

>>10502911
Lets say you want to eat 2 apples out of a box that had 2 apples but Jim took 2 apples from it.

[Anonymous No.10504572]

>>10504550
Just use inverse proof. If you CAN reach a known false statement with your proof (your picture), it means your proof is wrong. "0=1" is a known false statement obviously.

[Anonymous No.10504707]

>>10502886
Undefined by convention.
>>10502897
>>10502900
These are moderately okay heuristics for why it is undefined, by convention, and the rationals are all numbers of the form p/q with q NONZERO.
>>10502906
No it's not. There's no useful definition for division by zero, so it's undefined by convention.
>>10502910
Cannot even read that
>>10502911
>Zero is not a defined number
Zero is defined, exactly precisely, as the additive identity. The justification for "the" and not "a" comes from the fact of the uniqueness of additive identities being provable in all fields (including the real numbers, which is *defined* as an ordered field with the least upper bound property).

>>10502912
This is actually a great proof that 0/0 cannot be a rational number.

>>10502914
Total nonsense. Just because 0 is defined specially (as the additive identity) doesn't mean it doesn't satisfy definition properties that all other numbers satisfy.

>>10502916
Nonsensical

>>10502924
Misinterpretation of a limit statement

>>10503385
Total, absolute handwaving nonsense.

[Anonymous No.10505586]

>>10504124
But you could envision 1/(5/7) or 7/5 cake, yes?
What would 1/0 cake look like?

[Anonymous No.10506166]

>>10502886
Because it is both an additive identity and multiplicative absorbing element.

[Anonymous No.10506185]

>>10502886
Division is defined as an operation on two numbers, a numerator and a denominator, where the denominator is not zero. Dividing by zero is the same as dividing by cake, or dividing by equals - it just doesn't compute.

[Anonymous No.10506186]

>>10504707
based reads the whole thread before replying poster

[Anonymous No.10506187]

>>10506185
correct but mega gay answer, avoiding the question

what he's asking is why is division not defined for denominator zero

[Anonymous No.10506188]

>>10502886
You can, just define x/0 arbitrarily

[Anonymous No.10506191]

>>10503552
Easy, I just eat it.

[Anonymous No.10506202]

>>10502886
draw graph of 1/x and see what happens as x goes to 0

[2*2 = 5 No.10506274]

20 = 20
8 + 12 = 20 + 10 - 25 + 15
8 - 20 + 12 = 10 - 25 + 15
2*(4 - 10 + 6) = 10 - 25 + 15
2*2*(2 - 5 + 3) = 5*(2 - 5 + 3)
2*2 = 5

[Anonymous No.10506310]

Y'all niggas never heard of rudimentary algebra?
this is like step 0 lmao
What do you mean by zero and what do you mean by divide
In simple words, if you want your division to keep some elementary properties , then you can't divide by 0

[Anonymous No.10507309]

and why we cant divide matrix

[Anonymous No.10507319]

If I can't divide by zero why can I take the limit as x goes to 0 of 1/x?

[Anonymous No.10507325]

>ctrl+f
>No results for "tooker"
Okay mods, what have you done?

[Anonymous No.10507347]

>>10506274
All numbers being equivalent in measure is fine reasoning for me.

[Anonymous No.10507444]

>>10503712
0 is not null

[Anonymous No.10507451]

>>10502886
ZERO IS NOT A NUMBER.

[Anonymous No.10508068]

>>10502886
You cant in math but in this one course I was in for electricsl emgineering a divide by zero situation came up on an exam. I assumed I did something wrong but the exam was timed so I had to move on. Come to find out I had the right answer despite the divide by zero (limits were not involved by the way). Many people asked about this in lecture and the professor said that in the real world, sometimes you encounter dividing by zero. Its what sets us appart from mathematicians: our ability to have an open mind.

[Anonymous No.10508103]

>>10503953
i'm pretty sure this is impossible, it is easily provable that any two numbers that share the additive identity in the same set must be the same, so you cant have that and have heteroticity.

[Anonymous No.10508125]

>>10504564
No, the symbol 5 indicates a defined quantity. It can interact sensibly with real numbers. 0 is a symbol that, while it may be used alongside other number symbols, is the representation of nothing. You can't do anything with it alone because it cannot be acted upon.

[Anonymous No.10508132]

>>10502912
but then why does 2^4*0=4^2*0

[Anonymous No.10508136]

>>10503953
kek

[Anonymous No.10508137]

>>10504124
You need to go back to elementary school and learn about remainders.

[Anonymous No.10508138]

>>10502912
>10502912

So If I can eat 2 apples why cant I eat none apples?

[Anonymous No.10508145]

>>10504559
Zero isn't natural

[Anonymous No.10508154]

>>10508068
That's because it was measured as 0 due to measuring approximation.. Dumb brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10509004]

>>10507309
Matrices of a certain dimension are a vector space that we created. While their original purpose was to help with systems of linear equations, we wanted to do more with them. We created the multiplication system matrices use,. Important thing to note here is that you can divide matrices, just indirectly.The multiplicative inverse essentially represents division by the same number. (3*(1/3) = 3/3)

>>10507319
The limit does not concern itself the actual value of the function at the exact point, it just looks at what is going on around the point.

[Anonymous No.10509299]

>>10502911
>Let's say you want to eat two out of zero apples. Can you do that?
2 apples / 0 apples
Since there are no apples, you cannot.

This is backwards. You're describing 0/2. 2/0 would be if you have 2 apples and don't divide them. 2/0 = 2

[Anonymous No.10509415]

Even if [math]\frac{0}{0} = 1[/math] because [math]\frac{sin(x)}{x} \xrightarrow {x\to0} 1 [/math], we'd still have things like [math]\frac{1/n^2}{1/n} \xrightarrow {x\to0} 0 [/math].

[Anonymous No.10509549]

>>10508132
this

[Anonymous No.10509584]

>>10502886
a / b means, 'that number, when multiplied by b produces a'

3/0 means, 'that number, when multiplied by 0 produces 3'.

there is no such number. hence 3/0 is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.10509593]

What is 1*0? 0
What is 2*0? 0
What is 10*0? 0
What is 1000 * 0?
What is a * 0? 0
But a is one defined number only. So a= 0/0 is meaningless because it could be any of the above numbers.

[Anonymous No.10509639]

>>10502886
Here is the real, nonmeme answer: Division is just multiplication by the inverse. The inverse of a number is whatever number you multiply it by to get 1. So the inverse of 1 is 1, inverse of 5 is 1/5, inverse of -3/2 is -2/3, etc. 0 has no inverse, there is nothing you can multiply by 0 to get 1 because anything times 0 is 0. That's why you can't divide by 0.

[Anonymous No.10509754]

>>10502886
Look at the very basic kindergarten definition of what division is and it becomes obvious.

x/y means 'how many times can you fit y into x?'

6/3 is 2 because you can fit 3 into 6 exactly 2 times.

2/0 is meaningless because it's impossible to get 2 out of zeroes. You could put an infinite amount of zeroes together and it still wouldn't be 2. Not a proof or even a real mathematical argument but it will get you the gist of it- dividing by zero cannot give you meaningful results.

For a more solid explanation, see >>10502912
Basically, if you allow division by zero, you end up with the possibility of all kinds of clearly ridiculous scenarios, including, as in that example, non-equal equalities which are axiomatically impossible.

>>10509584
Similarly, this is a pretty good explanation. Zero is defined in such a way that any value multiplied by zero is zero; therefore, no number can be meaningfully divided by zero because, by definition, there is no number such that that number, times zero, gives you the number you're dividing.

[Anonymous No.10510604]

>>10502909
this