/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9110800]

1/0=infinity
Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.9110827]

infinity=1/0=1/(-0)=-1/0=-infinity

[Anonymous No.9110829]

>>9110800
1/0 = every number simultaneously

[Anonymous No.9110831]

>>9110800
The proof is trivial.

Assuming the axiom of infinity, the following holds trivially.
[math]\epsilon_0= \kappa^{\lambda^\infty}0 = 0 \iff 1 / 0 = \infty [/math]

Using the universal property of [math]\epsilon_0[/math] we trivially obtain
[math]\forall n, \, 0 \cong \pi_{n + \lambda}(S^n) \, /\ \mathbb{Q}^\infty \otimes (\mathbb{Z}^\infty * \mathbb{Z}^\infty)[/math] which is a contradiction.
[math]\blacksquare[/math]

[Anonymous No.9110844]

>>9110829
Exactly, that's why we say it's undefined.
6/2=3, because 3*2=6
10/5=2, because 5*2=10
1/0=0, because 0*0=0
1/0=1, because 0*1=0
1/0=2, because 0*2=0
1/0=3, because 0*3=0
etc.

[Anonymous No.9110922]

>>9110800
>1/0 = x
>(1/0)*0 = x*0
>1 = 0*x
>1 = 0

[Anonymous No.9111597]

>>9110800
math is a tool created by man. You can't divide by zero in the same way you can't measure the weight of something with a tape measurer.

[Anonymous No.9111616]

>>9111597
What if you hung the weight off the end of the tape and measured how far it got pulled out against the rewind spring

[Anonymous No.9111643]

>>9110800
infinity is not a number,but a concept.
dont make sense

[Anonymous No.9111648]

>>9110827
/thread

[Anonymous No.9111805]

>>9110800
Uzumaki was a pretty good.

[Anonymous No.9111856]

>>9110827
what is negative zero outside computing?

[Anonymous No.9111857]

>>9110829
sounds like infinity to me

>>9111643
>infinity is not a number,but a concept.
>numbers are not concepts
pray tell, what might they be?

[Anonymous No.9111864]

1/0 = infinity
infinity * 0 = 0
1 != 0

[Anonymous No.9111872]

>>9111864
>1 != 0
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.9111876]

>>9110800
If you multiply 0 by infinity you don't get 1, as simple as that.

[Anonymous No.9111877]

>>9111857
>what might they be?
Depends on what formalism you are using.
An operation called "division" being defined on "infinity" is non-standard. Specify exactly what you mean by "infinity".

[Anonymous No.9111879]

>>9110844

Then we have 1/0, which is also undefined, but for an entirely different reason.

[Anonymous No.9111881]

>>9111876
>multiply 0 by infinity
How does one "multiply by infinity"? Sounds like unrigorous gibberish to me.

[Anonymous No.9111884]

>>9110829
Wrong.

>>9110844
You got that backwards.

6/2 = 3 because 3*2 =6
10/5 = 2 because 2*5 = 10
but
1/0 = ??? (no answer), undefined because there is no number that you can multiply by 0 to get 1.
But
0/0 = ??? (anything), undefined because it can be literally any number n * 0 = 0

tl;dr 0/0 and 1/0 are both undefined but for entirely different reasons

[Anonymous No.9112050]

>>9110831
>used trivial in every sentence before every result

[Anonymous No.9112234]

>>9110800
infinity isn't a quantity you fucking dolt

[Anonymous No.9112913]

>>9111616
>t. engineer

[Anonymous No.9112940]

>>9110800
division is when you see how many times a number will fit into the other

6/2=3, 3 2s fit into 6

How many 0s fit into ∞? No matter how many 0s you add, you never reach infinity. No amount of 0s fit into ∞.

[Prof Sai No.9112946]

>>9111616

This wouldn't work. Any weight that was strong enough to pull out the tape at all would pull out all of the tape. (Given room.)

[Anonymous No.9112968]

>>9110800
if it was,
<-- pic would be true.

[Anonymous No.9112972]

>>9110844
1/0 = 2
1 = 2*0
opposite from what you said, not every number, not a single number satisfies 1/0 = x

[Anonymous No.9112974]

>>9112968

where exactly is the error in this again?

[Anonymous No.9112995]

>>9112974
between the 4th and 5th line where (a - b) is removed.
You divide both sides by (a - b), which is not allowed, since a - b = 0
If division by 0 was infinity this would be a legit operation

[Anonymous No.9113016]

abs(x/y) is defined if and only if x OR y is non-zero.
sign(x/y) is defined if and only if x AND y are non-zero.

[Anonymous No.9113088]

>>9111872
literally an axiom

[Anonymous No.9113251]

>>9111864
>[math]\infty\cdot 0=0[/math]

[Anonymous No.9113266]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere
You're not wrong.

[Anonymous No.9113293]

>>9113088
Only in some very crippled system.

[Anonymous No.9113303]

>>9110800
This is a misunderstanding of the division operator.

While you may have been taught in grade school that you can visualize division by literally dividing a quantity into parts, this is not how we define division.

a/b=c means c is a number, which when multiplied by b equals a. This is the only meaningful definition of divison, and inherently rules out infinity as an answer

[Anonymous No.9113701]

>>9110800
Those who better understand mathematical statements correct me on this, but I'm pretty sure 1/0 is undefined because the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 is -infinity when approaching -0 and +infinity when approaching +0, which contradicts itself because -infinity=/=+infinity, meaning that 1/0, in the form of a the limit x->0 1/x is undefined

[Anonymous No.9113723]

>>9110829
This is equally wrong.

[Anonymous No.9113732]

>>9110844
Holy shit you stupid fuck a/b=c so b*c=a so
1/0=0 would mean 0*0=1 it's no numbers not every number

[Anonymous No.9113907]

>>9110827
> 1/x = 1/-x

1/0 = inf/1
0/1 = 1/inf

[Anonymous No.9113932]

>>9110800
An infinite number of zeroes would still sum to zero.
0+0 = 0 ALWAYS

[Anonymous No.9114322]

>>9113932
That really depends on the infinity.

[Anonymous No.9114446]

>>9110800
>put nothing into a box
>how long until the box is full

[Anonymous No.9114457]

>>9113701
>"-infinity=/=+infinity"
Pop-sci garbage.

[Anonymous No.9114546]

>>9112946
But isn't the internal mechanism of a tape measure based upon a spring/coil? Wouldn't the resistance become stronger as it tightens due to the weight?

[Anonymous No.9115128]

>>9112050
The proof is indeed trivial.

[Anonymous No.9115955]

>>9110827
Infinity = -infinity

[Anonymous No.9115966]

>>9115955
Except it doesn't, because n^x and n^-x approach very different values when x approaches infinite.

[Anonymous No.9116018]

>>9115955
do you want -infinity money?
you will be rich ;)

[Anonymous No.9116084]

>>9110800
>>9110827
what if I use an extension of the real number system such that it is [math]\mathbb{R} \cup \{\infty\} [/math]
constructed with the analytic extension such that any divergent series tends to [math]\infty[/math]?

The visual would be a circle with infinite radius representing an extension of the reals.
now that I have concocted this bullshit extension, OP is suddenly right.

t. algebraic analyst

[Anonymous No.9116116]

>>9116084
this got me thinking about some universal property for one-point compactification and I ended up at the nlab page for "compactum space". I kekked a bit

[Anonymous No.9116155]

>>9110827
>infinity=-infinity
nothing wong with that
lrn2projectivegeometry, plens

[Anonymous No.9116159]

>>9110829
That's 0/0
>>9110800
Prove yourself right

[Anonymous No.9116176]

>>9110800
1/0 = 1

[Anonymous No.9116250]

>>9116116
>complicating basic point-set topology with tumorous category theory
It's like I'm watching Haskellfags in /g/ try to write fizzbuzz using hundreds of lines of boilerplate.

[Anonymous No.9116271]

>>9111881
I think he meant that multiplaying any number (so in the range of infinity?) With 0 will not result in an answer of 1

[Anonymous No.9116294]

>>9114546
stop using hookes law

[Anonymous No.9116327]

>>9110800
Infinity can be positive or negative and since zero is neither we don't know which one it is chromate atheists

[Anonymous No.9116334]

>>9111616
You're pretty good.

[Anonymous No.9117438]

>>9116084
>algebraic analyst
So in other words a subhuman?

[Anonymous No.9117445]

>>9116084
>an extension of the real number system
That would first require the real number system to actually exist.

[Anonymous No.9117692]

>>9116250
>/g/
Subhuman engineer spotted.

[Anonymous No.9117700]

>>9110800
1/0 = 1, because 0 means nothing, nothing is being used