[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

# /sci/ - Science & Math

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 4 KB, 357x222, 1__YPUT3tTcOKt5MFSjujX4Q.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

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 Mon Apr 15 05:32:58 2019 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 Mon Apr 15 05:39:40 2019 No.10559678 In short - any answer counts as correct, not only 0, so there is no meaning in this equation.
 >> Anonymous Mon Apr 15 11:20:22 2019 No.10560263 >>10559657Its like f(pi/2)=tan(x), undefined.You can't write x=[blank], note that this doesn't mean 0=[blank]
 >> Anonymous Mon Apr 15 11:41:42 2019 No.10560333 >>105596570 = 0xx could literally be any number
 >> UniversalBoy Mon Apr 15 11:44:04 2019 No.10560338 You have nothing, and nobody wants it, so you give it to nobody, and each person gets nothing.
 >> Anonymous Mon Apr 15 11:50:21 2019 No.10560355 >>10560338There are many shenanigans here
 >> Anonymous Mon Apr 15 13:42:23 2019 No.10560587 File: 62 KB, 850x850, 1554834365013.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10560338What? That makes sense to say nobody gets nothing. Why doesn't it work?
 >> Anonymous Mon Apr 15 13:47:05 2019 No.10560599 >>10559657Because we define div : K × K\{0} -> K where 0 is the additive identity in the field KNow piss off with these questions
 >> Anonymous Mon Apr 15 13:47:29 2019 No.10560601 0/0 or infinity/infinity is indeterminate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form
 >> Anonymous Mon Apr 15 13:56:30 2019 No.10560621 >>10560601OP clearly hasn't even taken Calc 1, I don't think he'll understand.
 >> Anonymous Mon Apr 15 13:56:46 2019 No.10560622 >>10559657If nobody gets no pie, then everyone should get some pie. So your analogy doesnt work
 >> Anonymous Mon Apr 15 18:03:42 2019 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 dividingAs 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 Mon Apr 15 18:08:05 2019 No.10561239 >>10561227>in other words, you are not dividingI can’t wait to ascend the math ladder, I’m in ODE’s
 >> Anonymous Mon Apr 15 18:10:46 2019 No.10561243 >>10561239After you learn about computability, you will understand why x/0 can never be computed.
 >> Anonymous Mon Apr 15 21:22:46 2019 No.10561700 File: 119 KB, 583x482, 1551239577274.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >Another divide by zero thread
 >> Anonymous Mon Apr 15 21:34:52 2019 No.10561733 >>10560338>each personthere is nobody
 >> Anonymous Mon Apr 15 21:41:38 2019 No.10561745 >>10559657>it's exactly $-\pi$
 >> Anonymous Tue Apr 16 01:39:34 2019 No.10562196 >>10559657i can divide 0 into 0 parts an infinite number of times. where is your god now?
 >> Anonymous Tue Apr 16 09:23:10 2019 No.10562807 Dividing is operation of founding what amount of denominators are in numerator. So, how many you think zeros are in zero?
 >> Anonymous Tue Apr 16 09:32:38 2019 No.10562830 >>10559657This isn't math, it's a bad analogy. Prove your claim or fuck off.
 >> Anonymous Tue Apr 16 12:41:38 2019 No.10563235 >>10559657But 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 Tue Apr 16 12:48:08 2019 No.10563246 >>10559657x=1a number divided by itself is always 1. just like how 0^0=1.
 >> Anonymous Tue Apr 16 12:50:25 2019 No.10563251 >>10561733$\forall x \in \{\}$
 >> Anonymous Tue Apr 16 17:45:30 2019 No.10564134 >>10559657>I have no friendsThe 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 Tue Apr 16 18:02:38 2019 No.10564177 >>10560338Study 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 Tue Apr 16 18:06:34 2019 No.10564188 >>10563246>0^0=1Not really. The limit indicates 1. It isn't the same thing.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 02:22:05 2019 No.10565462 This isn't what you asked for but I'm sure it will help0/0 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 Wed Apr 17 02:30:30 2019 No.10565479 >>10560338>each person gets nothingHow many persons? It could be 5 persons don’t wanna anything or 10 or pi^2/4.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 02:30:35 2019 No.10565481 >>10563246>>10563235>a number divided by itself is always 1Zero multiplied by anything is always zero.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 02:34:33 2019 No.10565492 >>10560338and then the answer should still be zero
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 02:43:05 2019 No.10565506 >>10559657How about 1 divided by zero? There is one apple and it is divided among zero people. Still one fucking apple.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 02:48:33 2019 No.10565519 >>10565506Analogy 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 Wed Apr 17 04:06:42 2019 No.10565640 >>10559657x = 0/00*x = 0x could be literally any number and the expression is validErgo 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 Wed Apr 17 04:19:18 2019 No.10565653 >>10565519I 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 Wed Apr 17 04:46:17 2019 No.10565698 >>10559657From 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 Wed Apr 17 05:15:13 2019 No.10565750 sensible and straightforward fantasy world:>define x/0 = whatever and everyone gets on with lifemathsfags 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 Wed Apr 17 05:22:03 2019 No.10565759 >>10564188depends on how the limit is calculatedyou could go two variable style:$\lim_{(x,y)\rightarrow (0,0)} x^y = ?$
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 05:28:17 2019 No.10565768 Simple, really,x/0 = ((lim x->0+ 1/x) + (lim x->0- 1/x)) / 2
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 05:40:55 2019 No.10565791 >>10559657Undefined
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 05:59:00 2019 No.10565816 >>10559657You 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 Wed Apr 17 08:15:59 2019 No.10566007 >>10565492The 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>>10565506Exactly right, the division doesn't happen
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 08:22:53 2019 No.10566024 >>10565816oh yes you can define it0/0 = 0x/0 = x
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 08:26:23 2019 No.10566030
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 08:47:35 2019 No.10566077 >>10566024>x/0 = x>lim(x->0) sinx/x = sin0=0>all digital communications theory is incorrect know
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 08:48:37 2019 No.10566079 >>10566077*now
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 09:47:14 2019 No.10566190   >>10560333Thats true, though. Any number times zero is zero. So dividing zero by zero shouldnt be a problem.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 09:49:35 2019 No.10566196 >>10560622It works if you say 0/0 is infinity
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 09:56:39 2019 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 Wed Apr 17 10:06:54 2019 No.10566225 >>10560333Why 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 Wed Apr 17 12:08:13 2019 No.10566521 >>10559657One 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 Wed Apr 17 14:51:04 2019 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 Wed Apr 17 14:57:11 2019 No.10566981 >>10560338But you could also give 100 to each person.
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 15:02:21 2019 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 Wed Apr 17 15:07:10 2019 No.10567007 >>10566958Matter cannot be created or destroyed
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 18:19:36 2019 No.10567510 >>10560338I don't fucking get itYou 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=Ywhat makes us sure that X=Y ?one could be bigger than the other
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 18:22:21 2019 No.10567520 >>10559657OP 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 Wed Apr 17 21:57:41 2019 No.10568104 >>10561700Based
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 22:31:11 2019 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 Wed Apr 17 23:14:57 2019 No.10568281 >>10559657Division does not equal multiplication
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 23:28:10 2019 No.10568322 >>10566981>giving 100 nothings to each personDo you mean to quantify the absence of something, and to imply that you could distribute this quantifiable nothingness to other people?
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 23:33:44 2019 No.10568335 File: 25 KB, 775x435, 789922.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] I solved it lads
 >> Anonymous Wed Apr 17 23:35:34 2019 No.10568343 >dividing by zero Ahh, to be young again >multiplying by negative zero Now we're talking maths
 >> Anonymous Thu Apr 18 03:55:34 2019 No.10568670 >>10568335Wrong. The answer is NaN.
 >> Anonymous Thu Apr 18 07:14:40 2019 No.10568928 >>10560338So what you're saying is each no one receives one none. Therefore 0/0=1 just as X/X=1.
 >> Anonymous Thu Apr 18 07:18:55 2019 No.10568936 >>10568670Exactly 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 Thu Apr 18 09:44:38 2019 No.10569252 >>10565462It 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 Thu Apr 18 10:48:12 2019 No.10569403 File: 126 KB, 1131x622, 1543748295787.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>10559657Math 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 Thu Apr 18 11:29:45 2019 No.10569498 >>10569403Technically 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 Thu Apr 18 12:03:37 2019 No.10569560 >>10563246That'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 Thu Apr 18 12:07:21 2019 No.10569573 >>10569560Well, world relies on circular logic.
>>