[ 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

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 239 KB, 1080x963, 1606484905617.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
12392904 No.12392904 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>Dividing by zero? That's absurd. Don't even bother with it.
>What's that, the heckin' square root of negative one? BASED AND TOTALLY HECKIN VALID!!!!! THIS HAS SO MANY GOSHDARNED APPLICATIONS IN SCIENCE!!!!

>> No.12392937

you're gonna have to do better than that, playa

>> No.12393009

>Dividing by the square root of negative 1

>> No.12393017

What's it like to be an idiot? I honestly don't know because I am incredibly intelligent.

>> No.12393073

It just doesn't yield any interesting results like imaginary numbers do and it also leads to contradictions

>> No.12393109

What would a number divided by 0 equal? 0?

If 5/0=0, then that would mean 0 x 0=5

If 4/0=0, that would mean 0 x 0=4

In fact, it would mean that 0 x 0 could equal any real number.

>> No.12393199

Sounds good to me. Numbers are a spectrum kind of like gender.

>> No.12393209

your mapping isn’t injective

>> No.12393211

zero divided by zero is one. there is one nothing within nothing. this is what I call the something from nothing paradox, and it's what caused the big bang

>> No.12393214

Let 1/0 = &
Define 0 * & = 1

5/0 = 5&
4/0 = 4&
3/0 = 3&
0/0 = 0& = 1

>> No.12393215

Can you cite your source for that?

>> No.12393218 [DELETED] 

0 = 1
0/0 = 1
1/0 = 1
4/0 = 1

>> No.12393219


>> No.12393223

0/0 = 1
1/0 = 1
4/0 = 4

feel free to ponder the ramifications

>> No.12393261
File: 85 KB, 700x525, FAE_visualization.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Give me one example where imaginary/complex numbers are needed, and this cannot be otherwise expressed with real numbers, and has realistic application

>> No.12393302 [DELETED] 

4/0 = 4/1
then 4 * 1 = 4 * 0
1 = 0
Absolute nonsense.

>> No.12393327

taking a math test in high school

>> No.12393376

Well, imaginary number help make more sense of the fundamental theorem of algebra, which in term allows us to solve polynomial equations and find all solutions.

>> No.12393386
File: 47 KB, 564x705, 5ab769cdd3a872e57b9a44980a76f9ce.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Merely asserting the existence of the square root of negative one and working as if you've already constructed it and can manipulate it like any other number doesn't make much sense because there is no guarantee that the rules of arithmetic don't break down, i.e. that you don't get any contradictions. That's why mathematicians are actually careful with complex numbers and construct them as pairs of real numbers
(a,b) with the rules of arithmetic
(a,b)+(c,d)=(a+c, b+d),
(a,b)*(c,d)=(ac-bd, ad+bc)
Then these pairs operate just like you would expect complex numbers to operate and you DEFINE
a+bi = (a,b). Then indeed
i^2= i* i = (0,1)*(0,1)=(0*0-1*1, 0)=(-1, 0 ) = -1.
You can verify that these pairs form an associative, commutative division ring, i.e. a field.
Now with dividing by 0 this doesn't work: the rules of arithmetic break down.
1/0 * 0 =0=1.
There is no way to construct a nice number system the way you do it with complex numbers that can accommodate division by zero, unless the whole number system is just one number x such that x is both 0 and 1, x+x=x, x*x=x. This is called the zero ring.

>> No.12393389

Solving cubic equations

>> No.12393394
File: 126 KB, 1131x622, math majors on suicide watch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

OP is right. To complement, here's the pic /sci/ couldn't debunk.

>> No.12393415

>and this cannot be otherwise expressed with real numbers
All things that can be expressed with complex numbers can be also expressed with real numbers because the complex numbers are just pairs of real numbers (>>12393386).

>> No.12393445

Nothing really breaks down, they're just being cautious with the usage they've already defined. IMO math misuses 0, in practice it should do nothing. 4/0? You divided it by nothing so nothing happens: 4/0=0. 4*0? You multiplied it by nothing sk mothing happens: 4*0=4.

>> No.12393468

The entire field of electronics

>> No.12393471

What about [math]4^{0}[/math] then?

>> No.12393475


>> No.12393476

You agree that 0+0=0.
But then you want numbers to have the distributive property.
So if 4*0=4, then 4=4*0=4*(0+0)=4*0 + 4*0 = 4+4=8, so 4=8, a contradiction!

>> No.12393489

Exponents are just a count for the number of times a number is used in a multiplication, specifically 1*etc. 4 with exponent 0 is just 1 because it means 4 isn't being used. It's not comparable to a situation such as 4/0 where 0 is explicitely being utilized.

>> No.12393490

You need to be 18 to post here.

>> No.12393494

maybe numbers weren't meant to have the distributive property

>> No.12393502

Electrical engineering use complex numbers all the time. Stop confusing YOUR retardation and ignorance involving numbers with reality.

>> No.12393514

The real numbers have the distributive property, and so do most other number system. If letting us divide by 0 or setting 0*x=x means we have to get rid of the distributive property, perhaps it's not such a good idea?

>> No.12393531

All things considered, techically there is no proof that that equation is wrong on a fundamental level. It caused something to come from nothing, but for all we know that is physically possible outside the scope of classical mechanics.

>> No.12393537

if the real numbers don't let us divide by 0, perhaps they aren't a good idea? maybe we need a new categorization of numbers that ignore things like a hard distributive property and associative property

>> No.12393542

You could just not use the distributive property on zero. It's fairly obvious why it wouldn't work with zero, and not every rule has to work with what is essentially not a real number.

>> No.12393575

So the best arguments for complex numbers were the fundamental theory of algebra and ee. Fundamental theory of algebra in old real sense means one can divide a real polynome to multiplication of first and second order polynomes. Some lunatic just separated the second order polynomed to first order complex to get some autistic satisfaction.

Those electrical applications can be written with real sinusoids and vectors. No need to introduce the complex plane

>> No.12393588

The problem is not the associative nor the distributive property. Is the mere existence of a multiplicative inverse for zero: [math]1=00^{-1}=0[/math] because any number multiplied by its inverse is one, and any number multiplied by zero its zero. This is a contradiction, because the fact that [math]1 \not=0[/math] is a theorem. >>12393445

>> No.12393597

Make a list of properties you want your number system to have wrt multiplication and division by 0 and then I'll explain why your system SUCKS

>> No.12393666

It technically can have an answer.

>> No.12393679

Quantum mechanics.
All kinds of waves or continuous periodic functions.

Why the fuck am I even responding to a literal retard like yourself?

>> No.12393692

I'm not sure if naming sqrt(-1) an "imaginary" number was a mistake because people immediately latch on to "OMG imaginary!1!" or a success because it automatically filters out morons who can't think past names.

>> No.12393708

Seething mathlet.

>> No.12393715

The only mistake was the labelling of the "real" numbers.

>> No.12393721

wildburger pls go

>> No.12393723

I can't, due to Zeno's paradox.

>> No.12394641

/sci/ is so stumped nobody has even attempted a rebuttal, damn...

>> No.12394662

in other words, x.

>> No.12394665

Debunked by independent fact checkers.

>> No.12394673

Then half go and stay half going

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.