[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 5 KB, 662x244, 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5825484 No.5825484 [Reply] [Original]

Here's a hypothetical:

If 0/0 was defined as 0 (how or why doesn't matter), what solution for 1/0 logically follow?

>> No.5825490

Please clarify in what set you are bullshitting.

>> No.5825496

>>5825490
Umm ... the set of complex numbers. By 0/0=0, I really mean (0,0)/(0,0)=(0,0). So how about (1,0)/(0,0)?

(Naturally, you can simplify to the point where you are only thinking about integers, or rationals, or reals.)

>> No.5825498

>>5825484
If you knew that, you'd know the solution for 1/0 anyways. You can state that 0/0=0 without contradiction, anyway.

>> No.5825497

op claiming ID

>> No.5825501

>>5825497
You're not OP, nor are there IDs on this board. As the real OP (you're going to have to trust me on this one; look at my writing style if you're that picky) I'm claiming this trip.

>> No.5825502

>>5825498
What? source, proof

>> No.5825503

>>5825502
Logic, faggot.

0/0=0*(1/0)
=(0^2)*(0^-1)
=0^(2-1)
=0^1
=0

0/0=0
0*0=0
1/0=(1+0)/0
=(1/0)+(0/0)
=(1/0)+0

It all checks out

>> No.5825507

>>5825503
I'm not comfortable with your initial proof. If, as you later state, 0^1=0, let's plug in 0^1 into the equation for 0. 0/0=(0^1)*(0^-1)=0^(1-1)=0^0=1

And then ...

>> No.5825509

>>5825503
>implying any rigorous formulation of the distributive formula of addition/division or the associative formula of multiplication/division doesn't include the condition of the denominator not being zero

>> No.5825514

>>5825509
Ignoring those conditions.

>> No.5825516

>>5825507
Except that 0^0 is not 1.

Either way, 0/0=0 is the only way consistency could be retained in a potential situation of 1/0, as I highlighted.

>> No.5825519

>>5825509
Okay, this one was a true scotsman. But still, any proof of those properties assumes a denominator unequal to zero. Division is even defined as multiplication with the inverse of the denominator, and 0 doesn't have that or we don't have a field anymore.

>> No.5825523

>>5825516
>0^0 is not 1.
https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/mathtext/node14.html
http://www.math.hmc.edu/funfacts/ffiles/10005.3-5.shtml
Yes it is.

>0/0=0 is the only way consistency could be retained in a potential situation of 1/0
I'll give you that.

>> No.5825525

>>5825519
>multiplication with the inverse of the denominator
So assuming that 0/0=0 wouldn't be wrong at all? Because the zero property of multiplication is still intact?

>> No.5825531 [DELETED] 

>>5825525
0*a is 0 for all real numbers a. There is no a that is the inverse of 0.

>> No.5825534

>>5825484
no because anything divided by itself equals one, not zero, retard

>> No.5825535

>>5825525
0*a is 0 for all real numbers a. There is no real number a that is the inverse of 0.

>> No.5825536

>>5825531
... and yet saying that 0/0=0 is not a contradiction at all, is it, because it's 0 * (inverse of 0), which we know to be zero.

>> No.5825538

>>5825536
was a reply to
>>5825535

>> No.5825540

>>5825534
Please go.

>> No.5825541

Hey, uhm, doesnt it make sense that 0 is simultaneously dividing multiplying subtracting and adding to itself?

I mean, just by the nature of it's self absorbed presence and watnawt

>> No.5825544

>>5825536
0 * (inverse of 0) is only guranteed to be 0 if (inverse of 0) is a real number, which it is not. Its like saying that all squares are nonnegative, so i^2 must not be -1.

>> No.5825545

>>5825535
>implying that there's an imaginary or complex inverse of zero
wut

>> No.5825551
File: 9 KB, 245x206, 9798.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5825551

>>5825545
ITT: Simply logical proof that 1+ equals 0

>> No.5825550

>>5825544
>implying that zero * (complex number) isn't zero
wut

>> No.5825558

>>5825545
>>5825550
I'm not saying that 0*complex number isnt zero, Im just saying that you cannot extrapolate all properties of real numbers onto all imaginable numbers, illustrating it by example of the nonnegative square thing.

>> No.5825561

More generally, a = b/c is defined to mean that b = a*c. Given b and c with c not zero, there is a unique a such that b = a*c. For any b other than zero, there is no a for which b = a*0. So b/0 does not exist.

Finally that leaves b = c = 0: But 0 = a*0 for every a. This is why 0/0 is indeterminant: you can get anything at all from a 0/0 situation. lim(x->0) ax/x = a for any number a.

Indeed, if 0/0 = 1, then all derivatives would be constant, and all functions linear!

>> No.5825564
File: 5 KB, 479x451, can we all shut up now.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5825564

Can we all shut up now

>> No.5825565

>>5825558
But if we didn't have the zero property of multiplication, mathematics wouldn't be a field.

>> No.5825569

>>5825536
You know, the inverse of a number is defined as that number that you multiply it with to get 1. If then 0 * (inverse of 0) is 1 by the definition of the inverse and 0 by your argumentation, there therefore cannot be an inverse of 0.

>> No.5825571

>>5825565
Real numbers are a field. "Mathemathics" or "The space of all imaginable numbers" is not.

>> No.5825581

>>5825564
That proof doesn't make any sense; (0/0)/(0/1) does not equal (1/0).

>>5825569
I was wrongly substituting the word "inverse" for x/0. Still though, if 0/0=0, would there be any contradictions within mathematics? 0*0=0, fulfilling the usual preliminary.

>> No.5825584

>>5825534
yes because zero divided by anything equals zero, so 0/0=0 i agree with OP

>> No.5825590

>>5825564
oh god ... that's horrible.

let's assume that 0/0=0, divide both side by 0 you have :
0/(0*0)=0/0 <=> 0/0=0/0
or
(0/0)/0=0/0 <=> 0/0=0/0 ( using the assumption )

you can't say 0/0=0 and then saying 0/0=1.

>> No.5825594
File: 311 KB, 568x300, 1357407075646.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5825594

>>5825581
>>5825590

>> No.5825599

>>5825581
0^0=0^(1-1)=0^1/0^1=0/0=0? (How do you define exponentiation?)
0*0=1*0 => 0=1? (Using multiplication with 0's inverse)

>> No.5825606

>>5825599
>0^0=0^(1-1)=0^1/0^1=0/0=0?
This isn't a contradiction.

>0*0=1*0 => 0=1?
This is. Damn. Take that, person-who-said-that-0/0=0-is-established-in-mathematics!

>> No.5825607
File: 114 KB, 640x480, 1370048741886.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5825607

>be me
>see this thread
>0/1 or 1/0 doesn't equal 0.00...01+-
>
>

>> No.5825612

Wait a fucking minute...

0*0=1*0 is right, but in order to get to 0=1 you'd have to stick in a step of good ol' division by zero.

(0*0)/0=(1*0)/0
0/0=0/0
0=0

Nice try.

(also, I forgot my trip in >>5825606)

>>5825607
Que? I can't understand the third line. (I'm well aware, that, using a may may, that's not a legitimate critique but a general complaint, but ...)

>> No.5825621

>>5825612
> >>5825607
>moi implying math saying 'undefined' is just having its thumb up its ass for the finer workings of the stringtheory esq existance of ours

>> No.5825629

>>5825621
>moi implying math saying 'undefined' is just having its thumb up its ass for the finer workings of the stringtheory esq existance of ours
Is that what you say? Or what I say?

>> No.5825647

>>5825629
>..thumb up its ass for the finer workings of...
All you, right in the middle, where you like it
Freeeeaaak

>inb4 /g/ shows up asking for the best physics principle to help them fuck their gf's bellybutton