Why is zero divided by zero not zero?

[Anonymous No.10559657]

You're dividing nothing by nothing so logically it should equal nothing.

If I have no friends and don't have a pie to divide amongst them then nobody gets no pie.

[Anonymous No.10559663]

There is no meaningful way to interpret division by 0 so logically your expression shouldn't mean anything. Which it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.10559678]

In short - any answer counts as correct, not only 0, so there is no meaning in this equation.

[Anonymous No.10560263]

>>10559657
Its like f(pi/2)=tan(x), undefined.
You can't write x=[blank], note that this doesn't mean 0=[blank]

[Anonymous No.10560333]

>>10559657
0 = 0x

x could literally be any number

[UniversalBoy No.10560338]

You have nothing, and nobody wants it, so you give it to nobody, and each person gets nothing.

[Anonymous No.10560355]

>>10560338
There are many shenanigans here

[Anonymous No.10560587]

>>10560338
What? That makes sense to say nobody gets nothing. Why doesn't it work?

[Anonymous No.10560599]

>>10559657
Because we define div : K × K\{0} -> K where 0 is the additive identity in the field K
Now piss off with these questions

[Anonymous No.10560601]

0/0 or infinity/infinity is indeterminate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form

[Anonymous No.10560621]

>>10560601
OP clearly hasn't even taken Calc 1, I don't think he'll understand.

[Anonymous No.10560622]

>>10559657
If nobody gets no pie, then everyone should get some pie. So your analogy doesnt work

[Anonymous No.10561227]

>>10559657
>a/b
>a divided by b
>dividing a into b pieces
>4/2
>dividing 4 into 2 pieces
>0/b
>you are dividing nothing into pieces of nothing
>a/0
>you are dividing a into no pieces
>in other words, you are not dividing
As it turns out, the second property of how to divide with 0s is stronger. You will learn in much higher math exactly why that is.

[Anonymous No.10561239]

>>10561227
>in other words, you are not dividing
I can’t wait to ascend the math ladder, I’m in ODE’s

[Anonymous No.10561243]

>>10561239
After you learn about computability, you will understand why x/0 can never be computed.

[Anonymous No.10561700]

>Another divide by zero thread

[Anonymous No.10561733]

>>10560338
>each person
there is nobody

[Anonymous No.10561745]

>>10559657
>it's exactly [math]-\pi[/math]

[Anonymous No.10562196]

>>10559657
i can divide 0 into 0 parts an infinite number of times. where is your god now?

[Anonymous No.10562807]

Dividing is operation of founding what amount of denominators are in numerator. So, how many you think zeros are in zero?

[Anonymous No.10562830]

>>10559657
This isn't math, it's a bad analogy. Prove your claim or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10563235]

>>10559657
But a number divided by itself should always be 1.
Its almost like its undefined and you shouldn't have gotten out of elementary school without your teacher explaining without learning why it doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.10563246]

>>10559657
x=1
a number divided by itself is always 1. just like how 0^0=1.

[Anonymous No.10563251]

>>10561733
[math]\forall x \in \{\}[/math]

[Anonymous No.10564134]

>>10559657
>I have no friends
The reason is that you have none is that you post this kind of brainlet questions.
Stop polluting the web with the shit from your brain, if you know nothing search the internet or read a book, don't waste our time.

[Anonymous No.10564177]

>>10560338
Study set theory and linear algebra. Deal with empty set and for example the span of the empty set. Does that gives you and idea of nothing? Empty?

But when thinking about number zero.
One can say, well is just number, just a position in the number line. But not any position, is very special because is the additive identity. You can think: "to add nothing". But this 'nothing' really has to have anything to do with your intuitive idea of nothing?

[Anonymous No.10564188]

>>10563246
>0^0=1
Not really. The limit indicates 1. It isn't the same thing.

[Anonymous No.10565462]

This isn't what you asked for but I'm sure it will help

0/0 is simply undefined space. That means that if you can act on it, then it is not in the means and Richard Feymann wasn't actually a good teacher, just a good soldier to Nixon and them. But then that also means that this is derived from another function and it can into induction. With that in place, there isn't a way to calculate for a mean that there is a dispute in its person for it to use more than its person as the dispute, that means that this is a guessing game for him to stand on and for you to elimiate yourself from your own products of faculty, into the schools, so that they may own them even if you fail, pass or just use the mind instead of the work to calculate into the means. If that arrives at conjecture, the person that isn't capably away may say that it is undefined and be correct but the person that says it is X is more wrong than that. That means that unless you actually arrive at a means for it all to unrave into a 0, there is a use for the function to equate a nature of sucrose away from the ions, and use the proton nature in it, as Physics for Feymann criteria, the person that does not dispute for it in mass is the person that has laid it in to the plans for a table that will suggest an evil can digress into mathematics and there will be a use of it into the churches. Or they will be burning them down to the ground to prove the point that they can do both and that's still evil. It isn't difficult to just recall that there may be a value in 0/0 and reach to it with all other values that reach to it for as a 0 in numerator or denominator to simply create to yourself the digest of a popular number in series, like in physics for out of mathematics, so that you can engage in conversation and not discussion. Unless you are the evil person. That makes it a moot category and all that will prevail into this, they may make a category for zero into the null types.

[Anonymous No.10565479]

>>10560338
>each person gets nothing
How many persons? It could be 5 persons don’t wanna anything or 10 or pi^2/4.

[Anonymous No.10565481]

>>10563246
>>10563235
>a number divided by itself is always 1
Zero multiplied by anything is always zero.

[Anonymous No.10565492]

>>10560338
and then the answer should still be zero

[Anonymous No.10565506]

>>10559657
How about 1 divided by zero? There is one apple and it is divided among zero people. Still one fucking apple.

[Anonymous No.10565519]

>>10565506
Analogy for fruit dividing works only for natural numbers. If my metronome clicks 1 time per second what’s the period of oscillation? 1 second. If my metronome clicks zero times per second what’s the period of oscillation? Well it’s bigger than any number, roughly speaking - infinity.

[Anonymous No.10565640]

>>10559657
x = 0/0
0*x = 0
x could be literally any number and the expression is valid

Ergo x is not defined. It's like writing down the words "a number" and trying to prove your statement refers to 5. A well-defined operation points to one unambiguous answer, that's why the square root is defined as the positive root.

[Anonymous No.10565653]

>>10565519
I don't see the difference. But I am a dummy. If you're not busy I'll read a reply tomorrow. Sounds like you are talking about a metronome that's not moving? Or going slowly? Zero per second can still be a click a week. It's lack of movement is infinite movement? Does Zino paradox have anything to do with this?

[Anonymous No.10565698]

>>10559657
From the ratio 0:0 we can gleam nothing about the relative size of each part,
Just like how (infinity):(infinity) equals 2(infinity):(infinity) equals 3(infinity):(infinity), etc, so too does 0:0 equal 3*0:0, equals 4*0:0, equals 5*0:0, etc. Just as infinity has additive absorption, 0 has multiplicative absorption, and thus operations derived from multiplication, such as division, will yield us no useful information from which we can determine anything. They are—in a word—indeterminate.

[Anonymous No.10565750]

sensible and straightforward fantasy world:
>define x/0 = whatever and everyone gets on with life
mathsfags in reality:
>no no it's impossible to define because the applicative monad on the functor field category space graph smorps a blozorp bingle boop ring *publishes 100 papers on the subject of division by zero*

[Anonymous No.10565759]

>>10564188
depends on how the limit is calculated
you could go two variable style:
[math]\lim_{(x,y)\rightarrow (0,0)} x^y = ?[/math]

[Anonymous No.10565768]

Simple, really,

x/0 = ((lim x->0+ 1/x) + (lim x->0- 1/x)) / 2

[Anonymous No.10565791]

>>10559657
Undefined

[Anonymous No.10565816]

>>10559657
You can’t properly define 0/0. If 0/0=1 then all limits 0/0 and inf/inf are also 1. For example Lim(x->inf) x/exp(x) = 1, that is not correct.

[Anonymous No.10566007]

>>10565492
The division is not really happening.
By taking a number and dividing by zero you're taking a tangible something and splitting into nothing, which cannot happen because you always have at least what you started with, or an infinitesimally small portion of it, wherever else in between.
Even if we make it 0/0 to try and get around this logical issue, we have nothing and split it into nothing. Did a split really occur? How can you manipulate nothing? A problem with this is that generally n/n = 1 but 0/0 =/= 1
>>10565506
Exactly right, the division doesn't happen

[Anonymous No.10566024]

>>10565816
oh yes you can define it

0/0 = 0

x/0 = x

[Anonymous No.10566030]

>>10559657
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'H%C3%B4pital's_rule

[Anonymous No.10566077]

>>10566024
>x/0 = x
>lim(x->0) sinx/x = sin0=0
>all digital communications theory is incorrect know

[Anonymous No.10566079]

>>10566077
*now

[Anonymous No.10566190]

>>10560333
Thats true, though. Any number times zero is zero. So dividing zero by zero shouldnt be a problem.

[Anonymous No.10566196]

>>10560622
It works if you say 0/0 is infinity

[Anonymous No.10566205]

Well luckily for us you don’t have any friends otherwise they would have educated you before you posted this stupid thread so we can all laugh at how stupid you are

[Anonymous No.10566225]

>>10560333
Why shouldn't x/0 simply return the set of all numbers then? We could say division by zero adds dimensionality, you move from working with individual points on a number line to working with all the points. Then when you need to work backwards, and ask the question of what is the set times 0, you get 0 because 0 sets is 0.
0/0 would also be a special case that returns 0 because the set of all 0s is 0.

[Anonymous No.10566521]

>>10559657
One of the reasons is that it results in conflicting logic. Any number divided by itself gives you an entire unit of the totality of that number, aka 1. At the same time, no matter how many zeros you add up, you will never reach 1.

In other words, if you divide nothingness with nobody, then everyone (noone) will get the entirety of nothing (its unit), which is nothing.

Either we conclude that 1 = 0 and basically fuck ourselves in the ass or we decide that this can't be possible.

[Anonymous No.10566958]

>>10559657
>
You split a object and there are 0 pieces of it.

You actually destroyed object, mark object destroyed and continue computation.

[Anonymous No.10566981]

>>10560338
But you could also give 100 to each person.

[Anonymous No.10566997]

0/0 equals whatever the fuck I want it to be. Most frequently 0/0 equals 1 for me, since I just add Laplace pseudocounts once I notice division by zero errors

[Anonymous No.10567007]

>>10566958
Matter cannot be created or destroyed

[Anonymous No.10567510]

>>10560338
I don't fucking get it
You have "no apples", let "no apples" be X and "no one" wants apples, let "no one" be Y.
you can in a priori conceptual act give "no apple" to "no one" thus :
X=Y

what makes us sure that X=Y ?
one could be bigger than the other

[Anonymous No.10567520]

>>10559657
OP modern mathematics just just masturbatory nonsense.
It's all self referential and uses it's own rules to "prove" it makes sense.

That why it's obvious anything divided by zero is zero in real life, but in mathland is means everyone gets infinite amounts of some of the nonexistent pie.

[Anonymous No.10568104]

>>10561700
Based

[Anonymous No.10568182]

Because division isn't actually a thing, its shorthand for multiplying by a multiplicative inverse. We justify the inclusion of multiplicative inverse so that we dont have to say each time that we're multiplying by some number such that, when you multiply by x, you return back to the original number. Instead we just say "divide by x". Because we know that generally x is going to have some inverse y satisfying xy=1. Then by commutative and associative property we can really figure out what it means to "divide".

0 divided by 0 could only be interpreted as a number such that when you multiply by 0, you get 0. But that's every number. So there isn't a unique answer. More generally, there is no number satisfying 0x=1 so "dividing" by 0 can not happen, because 0 doesn't have an inverse.

[Anonymous No.10568281]

>>10559657
Division does not equal multiplication

[Anonymous No.10568322]

>>10566981
>giving 100 nothings to each person
Do you mean to quantify the absence of something, and to imply that you could distribute this quantifiable nothingness to other people?

[Anonymous No.10568335]

I solved it lads

[Anonymous No.10568343]

>dividing by zero
Ahh, to be young again
>multiplying by negative zero
Now we're talking maths

[Anonymous No.10568670]

>>10568335
Wrong. The answer is NaN.

[Anonymous No.10568928]

>>10560338
So what you're saying is each no one receives one none. Therefore 0/0=1 just as X/X=1.

[Anonymous No.10568936]

>>10568670
Exactly right, its not a number, but its wrong to still return nothing. The answer is the set of all numbers. Dividing by zero should induce a switch to set logic.

[Anonymous No.10569252]

>>10565462
It is defined by the fact, that you divided nothing into not a piece therefore you do not have a piece. Real question is if "not a piece(piecen't)" is a piece in context of "not having a piece"

Piecen't. Sounds funny, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.10569403]

>>10559657
Math is inherently flawed and the inability to define what 0/0 is is the core of the problem.
Everything else is built on top of the idea that we should just push it under the rug and pretend it didn't happen. Everything built on a fundamentally flawed set of rules is automatically flawed as well

[Anonymous No.10569498]

>>10569403
Technically 0 can be the hypotenuse for a triangle with side lengths 1 and i. Your mistake with this image is drawing side length for i, though. It's imaginary, so hypotenuse length 0 makes sense.

[Anonymous No.10569560]

>>10563246
That's nonsense logic, 0^0 is undefined. You're trying to say that if we could apply the same logic with 0 as other numbers, then it will equal 1. But you're using circular logic.

[Anonymous No.10569573]

>>10569560
Well, world relies on circular logic.