/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 178 KB, 1024x1024, 1362505407261.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Mar 18 06:44:59 2013 No.5619497 [DELETED]

Let me start off by saying I swear I'm not trolling. I just had a thought:

Okay, so we all know that when you divide by zero it is impossible. Why? Because any number multiplied by zero yields zero; therefore, it is impossible to discern what (this is concerning 0/0 only, by the way) was originally multiplied by zero. But concerning the fraction 0/0, couldn't there be an answer to that? And wouldn't that answer be a set of ALL numbers (any type: real, complex, etc...in a way it would be the largest infinity)? Am I buttfuck retarded? Is this all an indeterminate form is?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 06:46:43 2013 No.5619501 >>5619497 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Indeterminate.html for the nth time...

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 06:57:13 2013 No.5619509 >>5619501 But why can't we define 0/0 to be a new number? We did the same with square root of -1.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 07:04:28 2013 No.5619515 The following is a sure way to tell that the person is trolling. >Let me start off by saying I swear I'm not trolling. I just had a thought:

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 07:06:44 2013 No.5619517 >>5619509 Of course it can, it just hasn't been defined. You can define anything to be anything in math

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 07:14:59 2013 No.5619525 >>5619509 we can, but then we lose some properties of working with devition and 0. definitions need to be consistent.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 07:16:28 2013 No.5619529 >>5619525 What properties are lost? >>5619515 It's a legitimate question.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 07:17:59 2013 No.5619531 >>5619497 Defining it would be useless. e.g. let 0/0 = idiot idiot*x = every single number but wait, every single number = idiot therefore, whatever you do to 0/0 it stays the same, its fucking useless

Anonymous Mon Mar 18 07:21:29 2013 No.5619534

You can define whatever you like, but it will not be a real number. In fact, not only is 0/0 provably not a real (or even complex) number, it is not in any set you will ever work with.

This is because no such element can exist in a ring, which is pretty much all you ever work with in algebra and analysis.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 07:46:14 2013 No.5619565 >>5619529 >It's a legitimate question. If it's an legitimate question then you might consider to present it as such, if you need to put a disclaimer claiming that you are not trolling you most definitely are.

Anonymous Mon Mar 18 12:07:00 2013 No.5619954
File: 99 KB, 500x716, 523523452345322344253.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Look OP, the answer is we just don't know yet. One thing a lot of the people who also don't know will tell you is 'you're wrong.' I wouldn't worry too much about them. They'll never find it because they'll never look.
Let me ask you a question, if I wanted to count zeros which one would I start with?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 12:24:59 2013 No.5619979 >>5619954 >we just don't know yet What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 12:27:43 2013 No.5619984 >>5619954 >Look OP, the answer is we just don't know yet. wat.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 12:42:29 2013 No.5620005 >>5619954 yes we do. various systems are known where 0/0 or x/0 with x =/= 0 are defined. the consequences are well understood.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 12:55:58 2013 No.5620022 0/0 = 1

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 16:25:30 2013 No.5620504 >>5620022 0/0 = 0

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 16:30:13 2013 No.5620516 >>5620022 >>5620504 0/0 = infinity

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 16:30:13 2013 No.5620517 intradasting tweet tweet chirp

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 16:39:29 2013 No.5620539 What if our definition of division is wrong?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 16:53:45 2013 No.5620579 >>5620539 what if our definition of wrong is wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 17:16:29 2013 No.5620651 File: 244 KB, 500x332, 563544563456.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5620579

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 17:24:44 2013 No.5620656 File: 15 KB, 367x388, PLS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5620539 >Definition >Wrong

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 17:25:59 2013 No.5620659 >>5619497 He said division by 0 is impossible, but little did he know that the universe is the process of dividing any value that came along by an infinity with the value of 0. It's possible. It just has no end!

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 17:26:15 2013 No.5620663 File: 247 KB, 762x390, oh fuck.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5620579

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 17:43:44 2013 No.5620699 >>5620579 Wrong is, without circular logic, 'inaccurate' so no. Wrong.

Anonymous Mon Mar 18 18:02:58 2013 No.5620741

>>5619497
Define division as a ternary relation Div(a,b,c) that's true iff b*c = a.
Then for any a, and b different from 0, a/b is the unique number such that Div(a,b,a/b) and Div(0,0,c) holds for any c.
But division is defined as a function. If it were defined as a relation it wouldn't solve anything since Div(a,0,c) never holds for any a != 0 and c, so it must be partial.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 18:09:15 2013 No.5620757 >>5620022 >>5620504 >>5620516 0/0 = indeterminate form

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 20:49:13 2013 No.5621042 At least in computer science, we have it defined. x/0 = NaN (not a number) not that you can do anything with it, and operation with a NaN returns another NaN.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 22:26:28 2013 No.5621241 >>5621042 x/0 is not always NaN in all languages. It is infinity in many (for x != 0). Anyway, saying 0/0 is "not a number" doesn't get us very far.

Anonymous Mon Mar 18 22:40:15 2013 No.5621255

NaN is considered infinity. _isinf(NaN) == true, so we don't disagree on that point.

I do disagree calling it not a number not getting get us anywhere. Different domains have different needs. For signals and systems where infinity is undefined, by definition its not a number.

Anonymous Mon Mar 18 22:49:44 2013 No.5621264

Property of numbers: x*0 = 0 for every number x.

Property of numbers: k is a number such that x*k = 1; k is the multiplicative inverse of x.

For the number zero, we have 0*0 = 0 by the first principle, so 0*k = 1 is not allowed by that very same axiom.

Anonymous Mon Mar 18 22:56:28 2013 No.5621272

>>5621255
What language do you use? Usually isinf(NaN) == 0 but isinf(inf) == 1, isinf(-inf) == 1, and isnan(NaN) == 1.

And I understand that there are theoretical advantages to giving 0/0 a value in programming, but this does not translate to a useful value in math. NaN is explicitly NOT A NUMBER, and you get the same thing if, for instance, you add {} + {} in Javascript. That doesn't mean that "empty array (arithmetic) plus empty array" is a meaningful statement. It just is sometimes better to give malformed statements a nonsense value than a null value.

Anonymous Mon Mar 18 23:01:30 2013 No.5621279

>>5621264
>Property of numbers: x*0 = 0 for every number x.
That's actually a property of zero, but yes. This is true of the additive identity in all fields.

>Property of numbers: k is a number such that x*k = 1; k is the multiplicative inverse of x.
That's just the definition of "multiplicative inverse". But 0 doesn't have a multiplicative inverse, which is the point I guess you are be making here, but disguising definitions as axioms is pretty confusing.

Anyway, it is true that 0 has no multiplicative inverse, which means 1/0 can't have a value. And if 1/0 is undefined, then so is 0 * 1/0. However, even in a field extension in which 1/0 is defined (as infinity), 0 * 1/0 is still undefined.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 23:07:59 2013 No.5621288 >>5619517 >implying y = x/0 can't be defined as x = 0

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 23:13:13 2013 No.5621298 >>5621288 >implying y = x/0 can't be defined as x = 0 wat The function f(x) = x/0 already is undefined everywhere. Why would you define it at the single point x=0?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 18 23:34:43 2013 No.5621341 >>5619534 it is not a real number, the only possible real integers are numbers <0

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 19 09:53:30 2013 No.5621914 >>5621341 >the only possible real integers are numbers <0 wat?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 19 17:31:48 2013 No.5622763 >>5619501 Why can't we assign values to indeterminate forms?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 19 17:34:03 2013 No.5622771 >>5622763 try it and see what happens

Anonymous Tue Mar 19 17:48:33 2013 No.5622805

x + y is "the number of things that you get when you add y things to x things". It is well-defined for all non-negative x and y.
x - y is "the number of things that you get when you take y things away from x things". It is not really defined when y > x, but we have extended the integers with negative numbers because by doing so we can preserve some nice properties of numbers.
x * y is "the number of things that you have when you have y groups of x things". It is well-defined for all non-negative x and y.
x / y is "the number of things which, when multiplied by y, gives you x." This looks like it is referring to one specific thing for any x and y, but really sometimes it is referring to 1 thing and sometimes to 0 things. It's like saying "the present king of France" instead of "the present king of Sweden"; the latter refers to something but the former doesn't refer to anything.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 19 17:50:17 2013 No.5622815 >>5622805 Your argument is retarded. Many concepts in math don't refer to anything physical.

Anonymous Tue Mar 19 17:54:17 2013 No.5622830
File: 160 KB, 466x500, retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Why do retards like OP spend their time asking stupid questions instead of actually learning something? What causes jack arses like OP to come about? How can problems like OP be recognized and aborted before they expand into full sized idiots?

And finally,can we use OP's level of stupidity as a reference point to define negative intelligence?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 19 17:55:33 2013 No.5622832 >>5622815 The basis of math is the counting of physical objects. See any paper on philosophy of math.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 19 17:56:49 2013 No.5622837 >>5622830 >jack arses llull

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 19 18:17:48 2013 No.5622883 It is not proven to be impossible, it is defined to be undefined. And yes, lim x->0 x/x=1 but it doesn't really say anything about the calculation,

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 20 07:16:18 2013 No.5624272 I actually thought about this: u = 1/0 a * u = a * 1/0 = a/0 a * u / 0 = a / (0 * 0) = a / 0 = a * u a / 0 = a 1 / 0 = 1 u = 1 1/0 is a constant function (no matter what operation it is changed by) where: u^x = 1 for all x >= 0 = 0 for all x < 0

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 20 07:35:47 2013 No.5624285 >>5624272 you're using the axioms themselves which state that division by zero is undefined to manipulate that expression

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 20 07:36:18 2013 No.5624287 >>5619497 >because any numer multiplied by zero yields zero >so we all know that when you divide zero it is impossible >divide >multiplied lol whut

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 20 07:38:48 2013 No.5624290 >>5622830 Yes. I propose a degree system where 1OP equals the OP of this thread. Chloe threads on /b/ would be about 3OP. Battlestation threads on /g/ 5OP CP and gore would be -5OP I think we can use this

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 20 07:40:48 2013 No.5624292 >>5624272 >x/0 is a constant function ftfy

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 20 20:40:18 2013 No.5625955 >>5624292 infinity is not a constant

>>	DESUDESUDESUDESUDESUDESUDESU Wed Mar 20 21:04:33 2013 No.5625997 lim 1/x x -> 0 = either negative infinity or positive infinity depending on which direction you come from, so it is undefined

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 01:06:18 2013 No.5626480

>Set of all numbers
that's not a set, it's a class.

Well, of course you can start to define random shit. When i try to define a real number r using set's of rationals only, I usually define it by the set of rationals lower than r. So 0 as a real number would be the set of the negative rationals for example.

Okay, now we just add the empty set and the set of all the ratinals as elements to the set of real numbers and let the empty set solve a/0 for a<0 and the set of the rationals for a>0.

We'll need to define +,* and =< again.
Okay, empty set = -inf, rationals = inf. Let's just define a+b and a*b as supremum of the set of q+p for q element of a and p element of b. (-inf + or * anything gives -inf again, but whatever.) =< is defined by inclusion. We don't lose any properties of the regular real numbers, what do we gain? … Yeah, that's why we usually don't do this. But hey, if you feel like defining shit for fun, please do so, it's a nice way to get better at maths easily!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 01:19:18 2013 No.5626498 >>5626480 >Okay, now we just add the empty set and the set of all the ratinals as elements to the set of real numbers and let the empty set solve a/0 for a<0 and the set of the rationals for a>0. >ratinals >forgetting a=0 Go back to school, kiddo.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 16:48:13 2013 No.5628029 >>5626498 Do you even understand what he's doing? It maks a lot of sense to define positive and negative infinity via dedekind cuts.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 08:44:38 2013 No.5629707 >>5625997 Or simply the unique point "infinity" if working in the Riemann sphere CP^1

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 20:35:42 2013 No.5630955 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 09:41:05 2013 No.5631994 Why can't I see the thread? Why doesn't it load? WTF moot?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 20:05:56 2013 No.5633345 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 09:34:08 2013 No.5634372 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 09:37:08 2013 No.5634380 >>5619529 > what properties are lost you no longer have a field, which isn't a huge deal really

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 09:38:23 2013 No.5634383 >>5634380 you no longer have a field for nonzero x divided by zero, but 0/0 is still undefined, until you go to weird structures like wheels

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 20:58:37 2013 No.5635868 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	sage Sun Mar 24 22:20:08 2013 No.5636148 why do high schoolers think weed suddenly allows them to disregard established principles in mathematics/science

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 24 23:03:23 2013 No.5636281 >>5622832 lel no

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 08:51:10 2013 No.5637132 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 25 20:05:53 2013 No.5638327 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 00:09:02 2013 No.5638864 It's exceptionally simple. When you divide by 0 you achieve two answers in the place of one answer. 1/0 = 0 with a remainder of infinity. Example: 5/0 = 0 and 500000000000000000...etc

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 09:27:29 2013 No.5639352 >>5638864 very interesting approach, thanks

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 17:17:16 2013 No.5640333 x/0 = infinity Was it really that hard?

Anonymous Tue Mar 26 17:22:00 2013 No.5640344

If I have 15 apples and each box holds 5 apples, how many boxes will I need to pack all the apples?

15 / 5 = 3

Now try this: If I have 0 apples and each box holds 0 apples, how many boxes will I need to pack all the apples?

From common sense, you know you don't need any boxes, as there aren't any apples to pack. You also know that the solution to the equation is found by dividing the number of apples by the apples per boxes. Thus:

0/0 = 0.

Prove me wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 26 22:36:44 2013 No.5640959 bmup

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 27 13:22:58 2013 No.5642017 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 27 13:43:45 2013 No.5642065 >>5619497 copypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypastacopypasta

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 27 14:11:29 2013 No.5642115 I thought when you times 0 it becomes 0 because 0 is essentially nothing? Also double nothing can be Infinitity I Suppose?

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 27 18:34:00 2013 No.5642800 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 27 19:06:13 2013 No.5642907 >>5621298 Because the giant sun of lava is colliding with the sun of ice.

>>	Anonymous Wed Mar 27 19:14:13 2013 No.5642938 Numberphile explains >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRRolKTlF6Q

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 28 09:16:28 2013 No.5644051 >>5642938 Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 28 20:06:36 2013 No.5645446 >>5621298 >is undefined everywhere That's why OP wants to define it.

Anonymous Thu Mar 28 20:15:06 2013 No.5645472

Division is designed as an operator on a set to the same set. If you redefine division as an operator that acts on elements of a set and returns subsets of that set, you could get that the output is a subset of size 1 except when the input is 0, in which case it returns the entire set.

In all physical applications you want a number returned, not a set.

>>	Shitposter !R27OVsYMYs Thu Mar 28 20:47:20 2013 No.5645575 >>5640344 common sense =/ pure logic prove me wrong

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 08:16:49 2013 No.5646515 >>5645472 Nothing wrong with returning sets. Numbers can be defined by sets, e.g. Dedekind cuts.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 09:02:21 2013 No.5646557 its a usless exercise OP

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 19:25:19 2013 No.5647726 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Way to bump a 5 year old thread.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 29 19:26:20 2013 No.5647728 >>5647726 >cancer

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 08:16:12 2013 No.5648748 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5647728 NO U

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 20:11:01 2013 No.5650162 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5647728

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 30 20:12:02 2013 No.5650163 >>5650162 endless faggotry

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 31 07:33:21 2013 No.5651041 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5650163 >endless faggotry in u're poast :DD

>>	Anonymous Sun Mar 31 07:38:52 2013 No.5651050 obvious clown is obvious http://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S5619497#p5651041

Anonymous Sun Mar 31 17:05:37 2013 No.5652034

the answer is infinte.
dividing by zero is infinity 0 divided by a number other than zero is undefined.

How many times will 1 go into zero. its less than any real number thus it can't be defined. How many times will 0 go into 1? you can use any number and and satisfy that question so it would be infinity. But if your teacher doesn't want to explain it just pacify her and say undefined.

If you want to mess with the teacher try this.

Don't let her know where your going with your questions.

Can you define division? Her answer should be determining the number of times a quantity is contained in another number. Or the inverse of multiplication. Make sure you get her to say that part, the inverse of multiplication.
When she says that you have her.
What is 1 x 0. She should say zero.
Reply any number times zero is zero correct?
She must answer yes.
Any number Times 1 is itself correct?
Again she must say yes.
Well if division is the inverse of multiplication 13/1 is 13 correct?
Again she must concur.
Well what is 0/1 it must be 0 because the questions she already answered would make that a logical step.
She'll have to explain that it's undefinable.
Then ask her is 13/13 1 of course it is.
Then ask so is any number divided by itself going to be 1?
She should say yes again.
Then why isn't 0/0=1.
The answer is really that zero is a theoretical number many older societies didn't even have a way to express it. It's more or less a place holder to remind us something has to be between 1 and -1 but most likely unless she was a math major she won't be sure why it works like that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 1 09:10:07 2013 No.5653300 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5651050 u mad bro?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 1 17:51:37 2013 No.5654253 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] le bump

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 1 17:55:37 2013 No.5654268 >>5652034 0/a = 0 when a = 0 Do you even algebra?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 1 17:59:21 2013 No.5654275 >>5654268 a is for Arbitrary, it be a paradoxin!

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 1 18:00:51 2013 No.5654277 >>5654268 a != 0*

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 1 18:03:36 2013 No.5654285 >>5654268 0/a is not defined in math. It could be anything.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 1 18:06:51 2013 No.5654291 >>5654285 a/0 is undefined u returd. zero divided by anything nonzero equals zero.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 1 18:07:07 2013 No.5654297 >>5652034 >she >she will make remedial errors in math >assuming teacher that makes foolish errors must be a she

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 1 18:07:52 2013 No.5654296 >>5654291 By that logic 0/0 is in a quantum superposition of 1 and 0 until we collapse its wave function.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 1 21:34:37 2013 No.5654764 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5654296 O rly?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 1 21:34:37 2013 No.5654766 >>5654764 stop bumping these threads please

Division by Zero The Mediator !!MMesqba6gpA Mon Apr 1 21:57:36 2013 No.5654789

Zero divided by any number (0/x) is equal to zero. This is the same as taking zero parts of something- or zero in and of itself. However, division *by* zero is a different problem. Since zero is, well, nothing, it cannot be split into any number of parts. As such, x/0 is undefined, proving an exception to the above rule (0/x=0).

If we were to define 0/x as infinity or any other symbol, we would lose the zero property of multiplication and thus the ability of mathematics to form a field. For example, say that x/0 is equal to our hypothetical variable, k. However, this means that 0k=x, destroying the zero property for any value of x besides 0.

This does, as noted, leave open the possibility of 0/0. However, that value is absolutely immutable. Adding to or subtracting from the fraction would necessitate a common denominator by multiplying the other fraction by zero, making it 0/0+0/0. Due to the zero property, multiplying or dividing the 0/0 fraction would be meaningless. For obvious reasons, the same would apply to raising or rooting the number.

In conclusion, we could consistently assert the value of 0/0 without any problems, but go no further. QED.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 2 08:30:09 2013 No.5655569 >>5654789 >we would lose the zero property of multiplication and thus the ability of mathematics to form a field So what? Why not invent a new algebraic structure? We did the same with complex numbers.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 2 19:46:15 2013 No.5656706 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5654766 Why?

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 2 20:56:30 2013 No.5656837 >>5619509 you can. it's terribly useless and boring. this is similar to localizing around a prime. if you adjoin an inverse to 0 (that is, elements of the form x/0), you have guaranteed that you are working in the trivial ring (containing only 0).

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 2 20:57:15 2013 No.5656840 >>5655569 see >>5655569

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 06:52:16 2013 No.5657691 >>5656840 You must of made a mistake. You quoted the same post twice.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 08:00:15 2013 No.5657741 >>5657691 >You must of made m(

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 14:17:31 2013 No.5658354 But a non-zero constant divided by 0 is infinity.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 14:17:46 2013 No.5658352 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] le bump

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 14:22:30 2013 No.5658370 God = Infinity Zero = No God TRUST IN JESUS.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 14:33:46 2013 No.5658387 >>5621042 >>5621241 > NaN scriptkiddie shit > Not ArithmeticException Fucking children

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 14:36:30 2013 No.5658395 x / 0 = infinity 0 / x = 0 0/0 = 0 It doesn't matter that you are dividing by 0, there is nothing to divide in the first place, so you end up with 0.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 14:39:46 2013 No.5658399 File: 27 KB, 266x250, wiles2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5619497 >3/18/13

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 14:40:02 2013 No.5658401 >>5658354 ...its not. the limit is just approaching 0, the denominator never takes on the value of 0.

>>	None !SouFinItEY Wed Apr 3 14:40:15 2013 No.5658402 >>5658395 then why does the limit of sin(x)/x = 1 as x goes to 0? checkmate

Anonymous Wed Apr 3 14:51:16 2013 No.5658416

>>5619497
>Okay, so we all know that when you divide by zero it is impossible. Why? Because any number multiplied by zero yields zero;
No, that may be considered a parallel issue, but it is not the reason at all.
You cannot divide by zero because it does not make any sense. You cannot divide any quantity into 0 parts. That is all.

>therefore, it is impossible to discern what (this is concerning 0/0 only, by the way) was originally multiplied by zero.
Completely wrong -- you're trying to force your first definition into a proof. That is not only unnecessary, but you've backed yourself into trying to solve a problem.

>But concerning the fraction 0/0, couldn't there be an answer to that?
Yes; but it wouldn't be one that is demonstrated or proven in nature. It would be nothing more than a standardized value or answer -- something agreed upon.

>And wouldn't that answer be a set of ALL numbers (any type: real, complex, etc...in a way it would be the largest infinity)?
That answer could be anything, since it is nothing but an agreed-upon value or meaning.
There is no fundamental meaning to "dividing nothing into no parts" so the world of mathematicians just pick a representation for it.

>Is this all an indeterminate form is?
No; an indeterminate form is some representation which has no meaningful solution or value.
There are many ways to do it, but they cannot represent the same thing -- they have no meaningful solution or value. (They cannot point to the same domain, as you suggested; they simply are nonsensical.)

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 14:53:45 2013 No.5658419 >>5620539 This suggestion makes no sense. Division is a very simple concept; defined and applied by that concept. There is nothing about it that can be wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 14:54:46 2013 No.5658420 File: 104 KB, 316x255, 1363162328822.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >keeping a troII up for this Iong

Anonymous Wed Apr 3 14:58:47 2013 No.5658426

>>5658354
>But a non-zero constant divided by 0 is infinity.

No, bullshit, WRONG.

Reminder:
you cannot divide by 0

This is not a trick, there is nothing mysterious about this rule.
Division is separating a value into parts.
You cannot separate any value into 0 parts -- it's nonsense. So stop trying to find some fucked-up stupid excuse for doing it.

And before someone goes to look for some standard that expresses itself this way:
notational issues and non-natural standard expressions are not what I, or the question, is addressing.

Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:02:15 2013 No.5658440

>>5658416
>You cannot divide any quantity into 0 parts.
That's not the theoretical reason. The theoretical reason is that division must fulfill the requirement that, for every a/b, the outcome, c, will become a when multiplied by b, that is, if and only if b*c=a. This is impossible with zero.

17/0, to take an example. No number multiplied by zero will give 17.

Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:04:46 2013 No.5658445

>>5658419
Your answer assumes that we defined division correctly. I think limits are a simple concept, yet it took our greatest minds hundreds of years to finalize it because no one had thought of it.

It's easy to claim you know something when it's apparently apparent.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:07:02 2013 No.5658457 >>5658440 I gave a simple, natural-world, common-sense reason. Why do you think the theoretical and formal counter-check for the definition is better to define it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:08:45 2013 No.5658459 >>5658457 Because this is a math board and not your preschool "let's learn counting" class.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:11:30 2013 No.5658463 >>5658457 All recursive functions are abacus computable. Division is implemented on a abacus by repeated subtraction. Take number greater than zero. Start subtracting zero from it. Come back when you are finished and tell us what you get.

Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:12:01 2013 No.5658464

>>5658445
>Your answer assumes that we defined division correctly. I think limits are a simple concept, yet it took our greatest minds hundreds of years to finalize it because no one had thought of it.
>It's easy to claim you know something when it's apparently apparent.

I did NOT say that it is simple because I understand it.
I say it is simple because it is not complex and is easy to understand.
I say it is simple because context is clear, examples are natural, and because we all experience and use the principle frequently, in its entirety, with full understanding of it.

Obviously there are more-complex concepts in math, but only idiots and teenagers would then claim they are simple ONLY because they are understood by that person.
Oh, look, there was an idiot above who thinks limits are simple because he understands them.

(Maybe he should learn the difference between the words 'simple' and 'easy.')

>>	None !SouFinItEY Wed Apr 3 15:13:00 2013 No.5658465 >>5658463 calculate 10^10 on your abacus by repeated addition of 1 come back when you are finished and tell us what you got

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:14:16 2013 No.5658467 >>5658465 Don't troll with a tripcode... It makes you look stupid.

Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:15:16 2013 No.5658469

>>5658445
>Your answer assumes that we defined division correctly.

?
How can we have defined division INCORRECTLY?

Let's assume for the moment that division isn't a natural mathematical function -- that we need to define it. If we defined it, that is, by definition, proper and correct.

But division IS, in fact, a natural mathematical function. It exists regardless of definition, we only need to define context for it to work. So we do -- again, we can not fail.

This isn't like physics, where we have to learn values and then assume they are correct for a while. This is abstract -- concepts defined can never be wrong.

Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:18:15 2013 No.5658474

>>5658459
>Because this is a math board and not your preschool "let's learn counting" class.

You're an idiot.
You do not define something with a counter-check.
The definition of a natural function is not given by the theoretical contextual factor; the definition is not 'if there is no value which then pertains to reflect... blah blah.'

Learn what a DEFINITION is.
Learn what formal context is.
Then realize that the most basic operations can have simple definitions and NEED NOT BE CHECKED by theoretical afterthoughts.

Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:19:00 2013 No.5658478

>>5658463
>All recursive functions are abacus computable.
>Division is implemented on a abacus by repeated subtraction.
>Take number greater than zero. Start subtracting zero from it. Come back when you are finished and tell us what you get.

What is your point?

>>	None !SouFinItEY Wed Apr 3 15:19:46 2013 No.5658477 >>5658467 > troll you wish

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:22:46 2013 No.5658482 >>5658474 Please take a math course. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:35:01 2013 No.5658503

>>5658482
>Please take a math course. You have no idea what you're talking about.

No, it's you who don't.
You are trying to justify some complexity and hope for flaws in an argument that is extremely simple.

Apparently, YOU think all these topics need to be made complex, and they simply do not.
All those complexities are about other things -- domain, context, restriction, limitation -- and none of this discussion is about those.

You aren't doing yourself, or anyone who listens to you, any favors by adding in tangential comments or formalities.

I said something simple, in a simple way, about a simple topic.

Shame on you, you fucking fool, for trying to make it more complex for no reason.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:37:46 2013 No.5658506 >>5658503 Nobody cares about your simplistic world view. Math is formal, math is rigorous, and if you don't accept mathematical definitions and notation, you can go back to >>>/x/.

Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:43:03 2013 No.5658513

>>5658469
>This is abstract -- concepts defined can never be wrong.
They can, if they don't have the desired properties. If we couldn't solve simple derivatives, that doesn't mean that it's wrong per se, but that it doesn't fulfill our expectations. It's inadequate.

In the same way, our definition of division might be inadequate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:48:47 2013 No.5658515 >>5658503 Jesus, shut the fuck up and leave this discussion. If you mean to imply that a "common sense" and wrong explanation is more important than the formal and correct one (because you don't understand the formal one?) then it's time for you to go.

Anonymous Wed Apr 3 15:58:16 2013 No.5658533

>>5658464
Your high-horse attitude it going to embarrass you when you're proven wrong. Watch out for that.

You can't just say that, because you consider the definition to be simple, then that it can't be wrong. That is no argument fit for a mathematical debate. A stronger counter-argument is required than "it's so simple, it can't be wrong."

Anonymous Wed Apr 3 19:55:46 2013 No.5659058

>>5658506
>Nobody cares about your simplistic world view.

People asking questions always do.
I answered in a practical, complete, and clear manner.
You tried to obfuscate by sharing barely-relevant formal details.

>Math is formal,
This is the problem -- math is NOT necessarily formal. It has natural, simple forms.
Avoiding them when they are the best answer is foolish.

>math is rigorous, and if you don't accept mathematical definitions and notation
I accept and use the CORRECT definition (you did not)
and none of the question was about notation; I used none.

The conditional statement you used -about- division did nothing to explain what it was; it just gave a condition that must be true to validate division.

Anonymous Wed Apr 3 20:05:03 2013 No.5659064

>>5658515
>Jesus, shut the fuck up and leave this discussion. If you mean to imply that a "common sense" and wrong explanation is more important than the formal and correct one (because you don't understand the formal one?) then it's time for you to go.

You are a fool for thinking the simple explanation is wrong, just because it is different from the formal definition.

I didn't say it was 'more important' -- I said it was a useful answer in this discussion.
Yes, the formal definition of division would be valuable -- no one argued against it. It's just not the way to answer now.
And, the crap "division must fulfill the requirement that, for every a/b, the outcome, c, will become a when multiplied by b, that is, if and only if b*c=a." is NOT the definition of division. It is a condition which validates division. (Note: it doesn't say what to do, or what it means, or how.)

Those people (I think there might be two) who are whining about how much better a formal definition is don't seem to understand what one is.

But, lastly, this was a casual conversation; it didn't need to be muddied up.
It certainly didn't need a theoretical math grounding.
I loved the formal rules when I learned them; I love them now. But, honest to God, you can do math without trying to make other people feel ignorant and pushing back against formal definitions all the time.
We got it; some of the people in this channel finished university.

Anonymous Wed Apr 3 20:13:17 2013 No.5659076

>>5658533
>Your high-horse attitude it going to embarrass you when you're proven wrong. Watch out for that.
Accepted, but I'm actually arguing the opposite; that a simple, low-end casual conversation can explain this.
It's the other guy who is taking a high-horse approach (formal definitions and conditions must be adhered).

I certainly recognize that the simple definition is not comprehensive, and doesn't make proof. It wasn't needed.

>You can't just say that, because you consider the definition to be simple, then that it can't be wrong. That is no argument fit for a mathematical debate. A stronger counter-argument is required than "it's so simple, it can't be wrong."

It is not that I 'consider' that short definition to be simple -- it is a fact that it is simple.
Please, I hope that no one is confusing 'simple' with 'easy.'

I still don't know why anyone needs to argue with using 'division' as 'separating into (some) equal parts'
It's perfectly practical, tells what to do, and makes clear why zero doesn't work.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 4 01:48:01 2013 No.5659675 >>5659058 >I accept and use the CORRECT definition (you did not) >and none of the question was about notation; I used none. top lel You didn't present any definition at all. And the question is about notation. "x/0" is a notation OP wants to define.

Anonymous Thu Apr 4 07:00:48 2013 No.5659844 [DELETED]

>>5621241
>doesn't get us very far
Tough...
<span class="math"> \frac {0} {0} =a fs a \in \mathbb{R}
=> \frac {0+0} {0}=2a but 0+0=0
=> 2a=a =>a=0
Now I'll try and show why \frac {0} {0} is meaningless in the first place:
Consider f(x)=\frac {x} {x} . Now this is perfectly acceptable, it's obviously just the constant 1 for all nonzero reals, but 0/0 at x=0 . Now If we use the definition we used previously f(0)=0 but In fact it's far more meaningful to use lim _x->0 x/x =1 <span class="math"> so we can see that defining an expression like 0/0 doesn't help us at all.[/spoiler][/spoiler]

Anonymous Thu Apr 4 07:13:19 2013 No.5659859

>>5659675
It's meaningless in general. For, say, Mobius mappings it is nice to define <span class="math"> \frac {x}{0} =\infty \forall x \in mathbb{R} \backslash {0} [/spoiler] but in the examples above depending on what limit you consider, you can make an argument for any number being defined as 0/0, which iss nonsense as you rapidly all into contradiction.

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 4 15:42:59 2013 No.5660679 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 4 20:30:44 2013 No.5661304 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] bumpity bump

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 5 03:54:28 2013 No.5662079 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] quantum bump

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 5 03:59:43 2013 No.5662087 >>5659859 LEL

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 5 04:10:59 2013 No.5662094 Is 0.00...1 < 0.00...9 sci?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 5 04:57:13 2013 No.5662127 >>5662094 depends on what those ellipses represent

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 5 16:19:30 2013 No.5663080 >>5662094 is .00....11 > .00....1?

>>	Anonymous Fri Apr 5 18:37:00 2013 No.5663395 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ghost bump

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 6 07:48:36 2013 No.5664743 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Apr 6 18:22:30 2013 No.5665843 >>5662127 What if they represent infinite repetition?

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 7 08:16:12 2013 No.5667538 >>5663080 See >>5662127

>>	Anonymous Sun Apr 7 17:48:11 2013 No.5668506 >>5665843 Then you don't understand what infinite repetition means.

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 03:04:42 2013 No.5669633 >>5668506 Now I'm not sure anymore if I know what it means. What does it mean?

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 03:17:41 2013 No.5669643 >>5669633 it means the thread will be bumped twice daily until the bump limit >telling you something you already know

>>	Anonymous Mon Apr 8 16:22:06 2013 No.5670607 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] cancer bump

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 9 04:40:03 2013 No.5671999 File: 21 KB, 400x301, game of luck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5669643 Sometimes thrice daily. It's a game of luck.

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 9 17:42:50 2013 No.5673114 File: 58 KB, 196x257, the queen of sci.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Way to bump a five year old thread!

>>	Anonymous Tue Apr 9 17:43:05 2013 No.5673118 >>5673114 >Way to bump a five year old thread! you said it

>>	The Mediator !!MMesqba6gpA Tue Apr 9 18:23:35 2013 No.5673220 >>5669643 Because this thread must never die.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 01:55:08 2013 No.5674196 File: 160 KB, 313x297, 1364253868789.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5673220 Never!

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 01:56:55 2013 No.5674198 >>5674196 >two a day cancer bumper

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 02:26:38 2013 No.5674252 >Okay, so we all know that when you divide by zero it is impossible. But that's wrong.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 09:23:10 2013 No.5674737 >>5674252 Division by zero is undefined for real numbers. .

>>	Plato's Sock Puppet !!kG1KeQ86oZP Wed Apr 10 09:24:55 2013 No.5674740 >>5673220 And when it does, we shall remake it!

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 09:35:23 2013 No.5674759 >>5619497 hide the thread every day browser history lost every day hide the thread every day I'd love to meet our mod in real life and shake his hand for trolling me so well, then punch him full on in the face for being such a fucking retard.

>>	Plato's Sock Puppet !!kG1KeQ86oZP Wed Apr 10 09:38:23 2013 No.5674767 >>5674759 I believe our mod is a mythical being.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 09:39:55 2013 No.5674768 File: 15 KB, 329x236, 1355857669382.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5619954

>>	Plato's Sock Puppet !!kG1KeQ86oZP Wed Apr 10 09:41:39 2013 No.5674773 >>5674768 >we just don't know yet >yet

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 09:49:39 2013 No.5674782 >>5640333 It wasnt correct though

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 10:22:55 2013 No.5674823 >>5619497 a field is an additive group with identity 0 and inverse for all elements and a multiplicative group with identity 1 and inverses for all numbers but 0.

>>	None !1fiNite0NE Wed Apr 10 10:23:39 2013 No.5674826 >>5674767 He is not, unfortunately.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 10:53:53 2013 No.5674856 In the trivial field, surely 0/0 = 0?

>>	Plato's Sock Puppet !!kG1KeQ86oZP Wed Apr 10 12:11:24 2013 No.5674948 >>5674826 My Psychologist said you shouldn't challenge my fantasies. Or something like that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 16:40:54 2013 No.5675481 File: 435 KB, 757x740, quantumcat.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] VIP quality bump

>>	Anonymous Wed Apr 10 16:45:09 2013 No.5675494 >>5619497 Who says 0/0 is undefined? I'll derive it's value right now: x = 0 x/x = 0/0 1 = 0/0

>>	Anonymous Thu Apr 11 03:02:10 2013 No.5676856 >>5675494 or it could be infinite

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]