/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10622245]

Is 0/0 100% or 0%.

I can’t figure it out.
What do you think?

[Jacob No.10622443]

>>10622245
Anything divided by 0 becomes infinite, its limit bounds toward infinity and becomes irrational so technically both are correct

[Anonymous No.10622504]

>>10622245
It's neither. We leave 0/0 to be undefined.

[Anonymous No.10622508]

>>10622245
0/0 = %

[Jacob No.10622561]

>>10622508
Lmao

[Anonymous No.10622563]

>>10622443
You can make sequences of numbers for which the top and bottom both tend to zero but the fraction tends to zero and sequences for which the same happens but the fraction tends to infinity. This tells us there isn't a good answer. This is the main reason we exclude infinity from the real numbers; it ruins them algebraically. By that I mean, there is no good answer to infinity times 0. There are topological reasons why you would want to, however.

[Jacob No.10622567]

>>10622563
Exactly

[Anonymous No.10622603]

Depends on the application. Use whatever makes it work

[Anonymous No.10622765]

>>10622508
The fuck

[Anonymous No.10622976]

>>10622245
it is 2

[Anonymous No.10623019]

>>10622245
0/0 is the number that satisfies 0*x=0 (infinite solutions)

1/0 is the number that satisfies 0*x=1 (no solution)

1/2 is the number that satisfies 2*x=1 (unique solution)

[Anonymous No.10623193]

>>10622245
This is not a homework board. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.10623197]

>>10623019
imagine not finishing elementary school and posting on /sci/

[Anonymous No.10623963]

>>10623019
This is wrong, but I like it. Go tell Tooker

[Anonymous No.10624006]

It doesn't fucking matter, 0 is a way to express a concept, not the concept itself

[Anonymous No.10624024]

>>10622245
Depends on context

next

[Anonymous No.10624028]

>>10623019
>>10623197
>>10623963
What's the matter with what he posted other than omitting the term "undefined"? Wouldn't it be correct if he had just included "infinite solutions, therefore undefined?"

[Anonymous No.10624095]

>>10624028
Well for one thing a/a is equal to 1 so the first one is wrong. Another problem is that any number divided by zero is plus or minus infinity which is just infinity due to multiplicative absorption so the second one is wrong. The third one is correct unless you consider complex numbers in which case there are multiple solutions the proof of this is trivial and left to the reader

[Anonymous No.10624106]

>>10622563
The solution to anything divided by zero or infinity times zero is good and simple: 'no'

[Anonymous No.10624110]

plz help
>>10624082

[Anonymous No.10624113]

>>10622245
Percent. Per cent. Per 100.
No factor of zero will ever yield 100. Say for example we want to know what 2/5 is as a percentage. We multiply the numerator and denominator by 20 so the fraction is out of 100. We get 40%.
There is no way to multiply 0 by anything and get 100. So 0/0 isn't 0%, it isn't 100% either.
This question is really just a variation on the "0/0=1?" question.
I know this answer isn't satisfying, we always want there to be a yes or no to things.
>>10622508
unironically most accurate answer

[Anonymous No.10624117]

>>10624095
Are you trolling? I'm going to go against my better judgement and assume you aren't,
0/0 is not one. I understand your reasoning but it is universally considered undefined
Dividing by zero does not get you infinity, positive or negative. It's easy to see why, first of all zero * infinity is still zero, second allowing x/0 to be infinity opens to door to all sorts of problems like x = x+1

[Anonymous No.10624209]

>>10624117
>opens to door to all sorts of problems like x = x+1
It is when x is infinity. This is due to additive absorption. What is the value of y=1/x at x=0? By inspection we can see that it is asymptotic and that one side is increasingly negative and the other is increasingly positive. Therefore the value reached at that point is equal positive infinity and negative infinity and negative infinity absorbs the -1 to become positive infinity. This function is not undefined at this point because it has only one value: infinity

[Anonymous No.10624228]

>>10624209
You can't absorb the negative sign like that. Positive and negative infinity are as different as you can get on the number line.

[Anonymous No.10624230]

>>10623019
Very nice. I am going to remember this for some occasion.

[Anonymous No.10624235]

Very good, honest and kind post. This warms my frozen /sci/ heart.

[Anonymous No.10624258]

>>10624209
What I meant is that you'll end up implying that a finite x = x + 1.

[Anonymous No.10624294]

>>10624228
It's really more of a field

[Anonymous No.10624296]

>>10624258
No, the only solutions for x are x=x+1 and x=x-1 both of which are satisfied by infinity

[Anonymous No.10624481]

>>10622443
>>10622561
>>10622567

[Anonymous No.10624505]

>>10622245
O I KNOW IT I KNOW IT
THE ANSWER IS

Who gives a fuck? Math fags autists. This is totally useless.

[Anonymous No.10624688]

>>10622245
It's not defined. Therefore it's not a number so it can not be interpreted as a percentage.
/thread

[Anonymous No.10624721]

>>10622508

[Anonymous No.10624724]

>>10624095
>a/a is equal to 1
>any number divided by zero is plus or minus infinity
Way to contradict yourself, retard

[Anonymous No.10624878]

(0/x) = 0
(x/x) = 1
(x/0) = infinity

Going by these rules 0/0 could be three different things

[Anonymous No.10624914]

>>10622245
What are the odds that nothing will happen if
nothing happens?--- It's a guarantee! 100%

[Anonymous No.10624915]

>>10622508

[Anonymous No.10624918]

>>10624878
Put it into words and it obviously becomes 1.
look @ >>10624914

[Anonymous No.10624956]

>>10622245
>>10622504
>>10623019
>>10624113
>>10624878

[Anonymous No.10624966]

>>10622245
50%

[Anonymous No.10624993]

>>10624956
Infinite isn't a number, you can't make arithmetic with infinite numbers, as much finite numbers with infinite decimals

[Anonymous No.10624995]

>>10624993

What about transfinite numbers?

[Anonymous No.10624998]

>>10624993
1/infinity= 0.0...1 which is proven here to equal 0
therefore the initial work remains true

[Anonymous No.10625009]

>>10624998
fuck sake

[Anonymous No.10625027]

>>10624998
0.0...1 isn't the same as 0.999... and other recurring numbers because by defining an last number it can't be never-ending.

[Anonymous No.10625044]

>>10625027
it is called an infinitesimal anon.
Everyone agrees 0.000...1 + 0.999... = 1.
The debate is on if infinitesimal are there own numbers or simply another notation for real numbers.

[Anonymous No.10625068]

>>10624998

Trichotomy law : For arbitrary real numbers a and b, exactly one of the three relations a < b, b < a, a = b holds.

Now let's be brainlet for a minute and consider 0.999... as a real number like you are stating.

0.999... < 1

oops

[Anonymous No.10625075]

>>10625027
Also, suppose we were able to go to infinity there we would see that "last" digit being a 9 and to get that to equal 10 we need to ad 1. However, we can't interfere with all those other 9s so what we do is list an infinite amount of 0s before the 1. This allows for the "ending" 1 to be added to the "ending" 9 creating 10. that 10 puts a 0 where the 9 once was and the 1 is carried over and reacts to the second 9 in the same manner. From there the cycle continues till you get to the ones place where the problem finally terminates.

0.99999999...99999999
+0.00000000...00000001
--------------becomes--------------
0.99999999...99999990
+ 0.000000...00000001
---------------becomes-------------
0.9999999....999999900
+0.000000...00000001
------------repeats till----------------
0.900000000000000000...
+0.100000000000000000...
-------terminates and equals------
1.0000000000000000000...

[Anonymous No.10625078]

>>10624956
0/0 = 1
0 = 0*1
But 0*2 = 0 also so
0*1 = 0*2
(0*1)/0 = (0*2)/0
(0/0)*1 = (0/0)*2
1 = 2
This is an obvious contradiction, which resulted from your assertion that 0/0=1. So it must be a false statement.

[Anonymous No.10625082]

>>10625068
I am showing 0.999... is simply another notation for 1 you Tiktaalik

[Anonymous No.10625084]

>>10622508

[Anonymous No.10625086]

>>10625078
Well what do those values really mean and where are they measured from? Level 5 question

[Anonymous No.10625090]

>>10625082
if 0.999.. < 1 then 0.999.. ≠ 1

[Anonymous No.10625094]

>>10625090
It's equivalent to 1 dumbass that's what
this>>10624998 proved

[Anonymous No.10625101]

>>10624993
>as much finite numbers with infinite decimals
All numbers have infinite decimals

[Anonymous No.10625111]

>>10625094
What about the trichotomy law? :P

Let T be the set of all real x satisfying 0 ≤ x < 1
This set is bounded above by 1 but it has no maximum element because 0.999... is a irrational number.

[Anonymous No.10625119]

>>10625111
Show me where this is wrong

[Anonymous No.10625124]

Is it worth reteaching myself math from trigonometry forward so I can shitpost on a higher level

[Anonymous No.10625125]

>>10625111
You sound so stupid 0.9999... is RATIONAL.

1/3= .3333333...
3= 3
3*(1/3) = 0.9999999....

[Anonymous No.10625131]

>>10625124
Fuck dude you gotta retake preschool learn what rationals are!

Rational- A rational number is a number that can be expressed as a fraction.
YoU SOuNd SpeAciL

[Anonymous No.10625136]

>>10625119
dunno maybe the whole part about doing algebraic operation like it is real numbers when you are playing with an irrational number

[Anonymous No.10625139]

>>10625125
except
3/3 = 1 not 0.999..

[Anonymous No.10625141]

>>10625119
You can't have anything after the ellipsis. You never get to "after" the ellipsis, because it doesn't have an end you can't "put a 1" at the end. Infinitesimals don't exist regardless

[Anonymous No.10625146]

>>10625141
Now I like this anon. Firm handshakes out to yah for being a free thinker.

[Anonymous No.10625154]

>>10625119
Let T be the set of all real x satisfying 0 ≤ x < 1
So the maximum element of the set would be 0.999...
but if 0.999... = 1, then 0.999... cannot be the maximum element because 1 is excluded from the set. So what would be the maximum element?

[Anonymous No.10625169]

>>10624956
>sideways photo
Nope. Ain't reading that shit.

[Anonymous No.10625171]

>>10622245
It's 50% as >>10624966 pointed out.
It either is or it isn't.

[Anonymous No.10625182]

>>10624993
>you can't make arithmetic with infinite numbers
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line#Arithmetic_operations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectively_extended_real_line#Arithmetic_operations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_number#Cardinal_arithmetic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_arithmetic

[Anonymous No.10625184]

>>10625139
1 = 0.999...

[Anonymous No.10625194]

>>10625169

[Anonymous No.10625201]

>>10625194
you need help

[Anonymous No.10625328]

>>10622245
Got your answer OP? Lol

[Anonymous No.10625413]

>>10622508

[Anonymous No.10625864]

that's not a very good question, do you want to take a limit or what?

[Anonymous No.10625880]

>>10622508
Only good post ITT

[Jacob No.10626526]

[Anonymous No.10626587]

>>10624481
Jacob Barnett.
Here we go...

[Reddit Exterminator No.10627078]

>>10626526
I've dealt with Tuba Jam, and I will do the same to you, name fag.

[Memepicz No.10627089]

dividing by zero is always false. So, 0/0 does not exist

[Anonymous No.10627092]

>>10622508
kek

[Jacob No.10627127]

>>10627078
What are you a fucking child, learn some math or fuck off

[jacob No.10627132]

>>10626587
Jacob barrett to you faggot, its my actual name dumbass, grow up

[Jacob No.10627140]

[Anonymous No.10627400]

>>10627089
>>10627127
>>10627132
>>10627140
Look at them go! Can they pass the Turing test? We'll never know!

[Anonymous No.10627404]

>>10624956
>0/0 = 1/1

[Anonymous No.10627405]

>>10622508

[Anonymous No.10627450]

>>10622245
well in set theory certain properties hold for the empty set in a vacuos sense, since for a property to hold on a certain group, the only requirements are that every element in the group hold such a property and that there is no element in the group that doesn't (you might notice that these things are equivalent when a property has only the ability to hold or not hold), an empty set always fullfills these two properties (all elements in the set have the property and there is none that don't).
so with this now stated, I would argue that 0/0 is a 100% success rate.

[Anonymous No.10627599]

Replying to an obvious bait thread because I have nothing better to do with my time.
[eqn]
\begin{align}
\lim_{x\to0} \frac{x}{x} &= 1 \\
\lim_{x\to0} \frac{x^2}{x} &= 0 \\
\lim_{x\to0^+} \frac{x}{x^3} &= +\infty \\
\lim_{x\to0^-} \frac{x}{x^2} &= -\infty \\
\lim_{x\to2} \frac{x^2 + 2x - 8}{x-2} &= 6
\end{align}
[/eqn]
Take your pick.

[Anonymous No.10627714]

>>10622508

[Anonymous No.10628843]

>>10624106
There's nothing wrong mathematically with appending infinity to the reals and defining x/0 to be infinity for nonzero x. There are worthwhile reasons to do this, for example, you compactify the reals, which is nice toplogically speaking. You can do the same for the complex numbers and in fact by doing so here, you get that the automorphisms here are the linear fractional transformations which I think is nice. You can also talk about meromorphic functions, extending nicely the properties of holomorphic functions.

So no, I do not say 'no' to such a thing. Sure, the reals stop being a field in this case, in fact, they stop being a ring and they also stop being a topological group with respect to multiplication or addition. So choose carefully when you want to do this.

[Anonymous No.10628845]

>>10625154
There is no maximal element.

[Anonymous No.10628903]

>>10622508
Oh my...

[Anonymous No.10629288]

>>10622508
Based!!!!

[Anonymous No.10629556]

>>10627450
>set theory
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10629856]

>>10622508
fuck that's good