[ 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: 239 KB, 1080x963, 1606484905617.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>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!!!!

 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 14:21:08 2020 No.12392937 you're gonna have to do better than that, playa
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 14:38:51 2020 No.12393009 >>12392904>Dividing by the square root of negative 1fixed.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 14:40:07 2020 No.12393017 >>12392904What's it like to be an idiot? I honestly don't know because I am incredibly intelligent.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 15:02:34 2020 No.12393073 It just doesn't yield any interesting results like imaginary numbers do and it also leads to contradictions
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 15:13:16 2020 No.12393109 What would a number divided by 0 equal? 0?If 5/0=0, then that would mean 0 x 0=5If 4/0=0, that would mean 0 x 0=4In fact, it would mean that 0 x 0 could equal any real number.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 15:36:19 2020 No.12393199 >>12393109Sounds good to me. Numbers are a spectrum kind of like gender.
 >> Fuck mudslimes Fri Nov 27 15:38:28 2020 No.12393209 >>12393199your mapping isn’t injective
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 15:39:49 2020 No.12393211 >>12392904zero 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 15:41:00 2020 No.12393214 >>12393109Let 1/0 = &Define 0 * & = 15/0 = 5&4/0 = 4&3/0 = 3&0/0 = 0& = 1
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 15:41:02 2020 No.12393215 >>12393209Can you cite your source for that?
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 15:41:15 2020 No.12393218   >>123931090 = 10/0 = 11/0 = 14/0 = 1
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 15:41:21 2020 No.12393219 BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STUDYERINOS
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 15:42:44 2020 No.12393223 >>123931090=10/0 = 11/0 = 14/0 = 4feel free to ponder the ramifications
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 15:51:30 2020 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 16:01:38 2020 No.12393302   >>123932234/0 = 4/1then 4 * 1 = 4 * 01 = 0Absolute nonsense.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 16:08:24 2020 No.12393327 >>12393261taking a math test in high school
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 16:22:48 2020 No.12393376 >>12393261Well, 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 16:26:10 2020 No.12393386 File: 47 KB, 564x705, 5ab769cdd3a872e57b9a44980a76f9ce.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report] >>12392904Merely 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)1=(1,0)0=(0,0).Then these pairs operate just like you would expect complex numbers to operate and you DEFINEa+bi = (a,b). Then indeedi^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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 16:27:34 2020 No.12393389 >>12393261Solving cubic equations
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 16:29:59 2020 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 16:37:39 2020 No.12393415 >>12393261>and this cannot be otherwise expressed with real numbersAll 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).
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 16:48:23 2020 No.12393445 >>12393386Nothing 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 16:56:27 2020 No.12393468 >>12393261The entire field of electronics
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 16:57:07 2020 No.12393471 >>12393445What about $4^{0}$ then?
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 16:58:38 2020 No.12393475
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 16:59:02 2020 No.12393476 >>12393445You 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!
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 17:02:15 2020 No.12393489 >>12393471Exponents 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 17:02:30 2020 No.12393490 >>12392904You need to be 18 to post here.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 17:03:08 2020 No.12393494 >>12393476maybe numbers weren't meant to have the distributive property
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 17:04:42 2020 No.12393502 >>12393261Electrical engineering use complex numbers all the time. Stop confusing YOUR retardation and ignorance involving numbers with reality.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 17:08:58 2020 No.12393514 >>12393494The 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?
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 17:13:29 2020 No.12393531 >>12393476All 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 17:15:13 2020 No.12393537 >>12393514if 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 17:15:50 2020 No.12393542 >>12393514You 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 17:31:08 2020 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.>>12393502Those electrical applications can be written with real sinusoids and vectors. No need to introduce the complex plane
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 17:36:07 2020 No.12393588 >>12393537The problem is not the associative nor the distributive property. Is the mere existence of a multiplicative inverse for zero: $1=00^{-1}=0$ 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 $1 \not=0$ is a theorem. >>12393445
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 17:37:38 2020 No.12393597 >>12393537>>12393542Make 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
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 18:00:46 2020 No.12393666 >>12392904It technically can have an answer.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 18:03:48 2020 No.12393679 >>12393261Quantum mechanics.All kinds of waves or continuous periodic functions.Why the fuck am I even responding to a literal retard like yourself?
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 18:06:32 2020 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.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 18:08:51 2020 No.12393708 >>12392904Seething mathlet.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 18:10:20 2020 No.12393715 >>12393692The only mistake was the labelling of the "real" numbers.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 18:11:44 2020 No.12393721 >>12393715wildburger pls go
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 18:12:32 2020 No.12393723 >>12393721I can't, due to Zeno's paradox.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 23:18:23 2020 No.12394641 >>12393394/sci/ is so stumped nobody has even attempted a rebuttal, damn...
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 23:26:24 2020 No.12394662 >>12393109in other words, x.$\frac{0}{0}=x$
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 23:26:52 2020 No.12394665 >>12393394Debunked by independent fact checkers.
 >> Anonymous Fri Nov 27 23:30:33 2020 No.12394673 >>12393723Then half go and stay half going
>>