/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5245395]

0 / 0 = 0

because 0 * 0 = 0 and K * 0 = 0, so
0 / 0 = (0 * 0) / 0 = (0 / 0) * 0
and no matter what (0 / 0) is, it is multiplied by 0.
So 0 / 0 = 0

Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.5245409]

n/n = 1
therefor
0/0 = 1

prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.5245412]

You must either be a 9 year old or suffer a severe mental disorder. Take your pseudo-math trolling to >>>/b/.

[Anonymous No.5245440]

x/0 = infinity

Therefore 0/0 = infinity

prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.5245445]

>>5245440
>x/0 = infinity

infinity * 0 = x

[Anonymous No.5245447]

>>5245445
Then x=0. Thanks for proving my theorum.

[Anonymous No.5245454]

>>5245447
That's more of a conjecture

[Anonymous No.5245456]

>>5245447
x = 5
you nigger

[Anonymous No.5245468]

>>5245395
what' are the definitions of "star" and "slash" operation you are talking about?

[Anonymous No.5245477]

>>5245409
(k / k) = something
(0 / 0) = something, even if it's not a constant.
something * 0 = zero somethings
It doesn't matter what (0 / 0) is. you have none of it.

[Anonymous No.5245484]

>>5245477
>something * 0 = zero somethings
are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.5245481]

>>5245477
something * 0 = zero somethings
false. this does not work for all somethings.

[Anonymous No.5245496]

>>5245468
* is mulitiplation.
/ is division.

I am confident that 0/0=1 and [sign]n/0=[sign]infinity. Not that it's practical at all, but math.

[Anonymous No.5245506]

>>5245496
Fuck you. n/0=0 would solve everything.

[Anonymous No.5245514]

lim 1/n =0
lim 2*1/n =0
if I folow your theorem, lim 0
but lim (2*1/n)/(1/n)= 2*[(1/n)/(1/n)]=2
so you're wrong

[Anonymous No.5245530]

0/0 = 1
anything else / 0 = ∞

[Anonymous No.5245538]

>>5245395

this is the kind of bullshit that ruins /sci/

DT videos were never a real problem

shit like this, is.

i hate you, OP.

[Anonymous No.5245539]

If <span class="math">\frac{x}{0} = 0[/spoiler], what can you possibly do to 0 to get x? If you rearrange to solve for x the normal way, you would get <span class="math">x = 0 \times 0[/spoiler], which means that no matter what value you use for x, when you try to work back, you'll always get 0.

[Anonymous No.5245575]

oh /sci/. Of course 0/0 doesn't = 0
but it has to do with the limit being different as you approach it from different directions on the number lines in the real, complex, quaternion, and hypercomplex sets.
keep being easy.

[Anonymous No.5245585]

>>5245496
you must be wrong, the division is an operation defined on R-{0}

[Anonymous No.5245582]

>>5245538
At least it's a math thread. The real cancer are hurr durr transhumanism space escapism fantasy threads by middle schoolers who don't know shit about science or math.

[Anonymous No.5245583]

0/0 is meaningless and nothing more than undefined.
proof: if 0 x 1 = 0, and 0 x 100 = 0, then 0 x 1 = 0 x 100.
then you can reform to 0/0 x 1 = 0/0 x 100 which leads to the false conclusion that 1 = 100

[Anonymous No.5245597]

<span class="math">0/0 = 0 \times 0^{-1} [/spoiler]

If the inverse of 0 exists then 0/0 = 1

However anything times 0 is 0, and so 0/0 = 1 and 0 both

This can only happen if 1 = 0 and this is the trivial ring

asshats

[Anonymous No.5245620]

>>5245583

fyi the only conclusion you can get from that is that 0/0 = 0

[Anonymous No.5246276]

>>5245620
>>5245395

You're assuming that dividing by zero is a legal operation, even though throughout your life you've been told it is not. Your false assumptions lead to false answers.This is where real mathematics breaks apart. Mathematicians much better than you have visited this problem time and time again.

The real answer is complex infinity, as given by Richard Riemann's mathematical interpretation of imaginary geometric spaces.

[Anonymous No.5246333]

0 / 0 = 0.999999…

/thread

[Carl No.5246351]

>>5245395

you can't divide by a Vector.

Where is your God now?

[Anonymous No.5246501]

consider the limit lim x->0 ((e^x)-1)/sin2x
when x approaches 0. the limit becomes (e^0)-1/sin2(0) which is 0/0. 0/0 is and indiscriminate and therefore offers no real answer on what the limit lim x->0 ((e^x)-1)/sin2x is. By applying L'Hospital's rule. Find the deriviative of the top ((e^x)-1) and divide it by the derivative of the bottom sin2x and you end up the lim x->0 (e^x)/2cos2x which when x approaches 0 the limit = 1/2. Thus the limit of the original lim x->0 ((e^x)-1)/sin2x = 1/2.
0/0 is essentially undefined as is any number divided by 0. The only meaning we can obtain from a number divided by 0 or f(x)/g(x) where g(x) both f(x) and g(x) = 0 is which one approaches 0 faster.

[Anonymous No.5246600]

I dunno, but thinking of this in a serious viewpoint, consider systems of linear equations.

We all know that n/0 is undefined, right?

In a system, 0z/0 gives a different geometric results to nz/0.

From this, can it be assumed that 0/0 =/= n/0?

[Anonymous No.5247146]

>>5246351
Yes, you can, you fucking retard.

3/5

See? I just divided by a vector.

[Anonymous No.5247180]

>>5245395
>>5245395
no one can be this stupid

[Anonymous No.5247188]

>>5247146
no you retard, you multiplied vector 3 by number 1/5

[Anonymous No.5247198]

>>5247188
lol

What do you think a vector is? A fancy little arrow? Go back to middle school.

[Anonymous No.5247210]

>>5245395
By definition 0/0 would be 0*(0^-1), which is senseless, because for any K, as you've noted, K*0=0, so there is no such L that L*0=1.

[Anonymous No.5247214]

You can't have zero wholes of an object. You can 0/1 or say zero apples where the denominator represents how many whole apples you can have and the numerator represents how many apples you posses but you can't have just zero. Zero in the denominator means you have literally nothing of anything, you can't work 0/0 into a plain English sentence because it wouldn't make sense.You can't divide by nothing and that why 0/0 is undefined.

[Anonymous No.5247221]

>>5247210
>>5247210
>>5247210
>>5247210
>>5247210

[Anonymous No.5247224]

Oh, BTW, you can interpret 0/0 as division of ideals (0)/(0) then it's the entire ring, obviously (not a single number)

[Anonymous No.5247251]

0/0 = % = 0.01

/thread

[Anonymous No.5247265]

0 isn't a number. It represents a lack of anything.

[Anonymous No.5247322]

>>5247265
it's an integer

[Anonymous No.5248830]

See, in the real numbers\{0} you have the following implications:
a*b=c => b=c*(a^-1) Where a^-1 is the inverse of a
In other words: If you know what c is and you know what a is, you know what value b has.
But if c and a equal zero you don´t know what value b has. That´s a way of explaining why one can´t dicide by zero in the "body" of real numbers. (Germanfag here, i don´t know if the real numbers are called a body in english, but in german the real numbers are a "Körper" and the translation of that is body.)
I hope OP has understood that.
I know, it´s not a good mathematical explanation, but I assume OP wouldn´t feel a good explanation if it sticks its cock right in OP´s ass.

[Anonymous No.5248837]

>>5247251
My sides...

[Anonymous No.5248872]

0^0=1.

[Anonymous No.5248893]

0 / 0 = 0^1 / 0^1 = 0^1-1 = 0^0 = 1

[Anonymous No.5249726]

there is no multiplicative inverse element for the zero-element in any field. thats a matter of definition.(trust me, i study mathematics)

you wrote: 0/0=0, which is equivalent to
0*(0^(-1))=0, where (0^(-1)) is the multiplicative inverse element of the zero-element of the field.
the thing is: (0^(-1)) does not exist, so what you, OP, wrote, is plain bullshit

[Anonymous No.5249739]

false. 0/0 = 0 because there is 1 'zero' in that.

[Anonymous No.5249751]

>>5249726

see >>5245597

[Anonymous No.5249753]

>>5245395
0^0 = 1
0/0 = 1
0^1 = ?

[The Fixx No.5249961]

0 ÷ x = 0, ∀ x ≠ 0
∴ lim(0 ÷ x) = 0 as x → 0

[Anonymous No.5249998]

>muh undefined

[Anonymous No.5250026]

0 = 0
0 = 1 + (-1)
0 - (-1) = 1
1 = 1
therefore 0 = 1