Explaining dividing by zero.

[Arsonist]

EDIT: I'm not gonna look at conversations, let this thread just die, please.
Look at most recent posts and it will proably explain why i want this thread to die.

What's dividing by zero and why it's impossible?

Let's explain.

Actually it's impossible.
If, 0x420=0, so 0/0 must be 420, but that's not true.
The "Dividing by 0 = infinity" isn't true either: so, if 420/0 must be infinity, so 420 = infinity x 0, so it means: 420 = 0, 420 > infinity, but infinity > 0 and that's not logical.

Also, tan (90) is same, as 1/0.





Tell me any valuable reasons why it's possible.
I saw a lot of jackasses, that was saying: x/0 = infinity.

2 for logic, what to say?

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Mhmmmm nice explaination sir. 10/10

[Fury]

This belongs in circle jerk.

But also, tan(x) = sin(x)/cos(x)

Image line 1 and 2 are wrong.

A far better explanation is to look at the function 1/x graphically or to numerically analyze the limits as you approach from either the positive or negative direction.

It's just undefined.

[Chalibluefin]

leave.

[Arsonist]

leave.

Who are you?

[Stealthbomber16]

Who are you?

he’s chalibluefin you illiterate fuckbag

[Arsonist]

he’s chalibluefin you illiterate fuckbag

Who is chalibluerin and what important posts he did to rember him?

[Stealthbomber16]

Who is chalibluerin and what important posts he did to rember him?

He posted on your goodbye thread where you said you’d leave.

His posts, by sheer percentage, are more notable than yours.

Please stop making these stupid, useless threads. It’s not helping anyone. And it’s actively making people dislike you.

[OzyWho]

Who is chalibluerin?

Stealthbombers Smurf.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

leave.

Why though... FOR ONCE he was posting something legit lmao it was 100% clean.

[yzb25]

Undefined just means no-one has given it a definition yet.

I define 1/0 to be 0. "proofs" I've seen that 1/0 cannot be defined typically depend on using 1/0 to cancel with 0 in some form or another. But this makes the assumption that the algebraic rule of cancellation works for 0/0.

It's not abnormal for some algebraic rule to break down when 0 is involved (for example, 0^a is 0 for all numbers except a=0, because 0^0 is typically defined to be 1). I regard this as another case of the rule breaking down for special cases like 0.

My definition is perfectly consistent and results in no paradoxes. You'll struggle to find one, because whenever you try to divide stuff by 0 to make a paradox, you'll just end up setting your equation to 0=0.

Fight me.

[Arsonist]

Undefined just means no-one has given it a definition yet.

I define 1/0 to be 0. "proofs" I've seen that 1/0 cannot be defined typically depend on using 1/0 to cancel with 0 in some form or another. But this makes the assumption that the algebraic rule of cancellation works for 0/0.

It's not abnormal for some algebraic rule to break down when 0 is involved (for example, 0^a is 0 for all numbers except a=0, because 0^0 is typically defined to be 1). I regard this as another case of the rule breaking down for special cases like 0.

My definition is perfectly consistent and results in no paradoxes. You'll struggle to find one, because whenever you try to divide stuff by 0 to make a paradox, you'll just end up setting your equation to 0=0.

Fight me.

Get rekt

If, 0x420=0, so 0/0 must be 420, but that's not true.

[DJarJar]

Undefined just means no-one has given it a definition yet.

I define 1/0 to be 0. "proofs" I've seen that 1/0 cannot be defined typically depend on using 1/0 to cancel with 0 in some form or another. But this makes the assumption that the algebraic rule of cancellation works for 0/0.

It's not abnormal for some algebraic rule to break down when 0 is involved (for example, 0^a is 0 for all numbers except a=0, because 0^0 is typically defined to be 1). I regard this as another case of the rule breaking down for special cases like 0.

My definition is perfectly consistent and results in no paradoxes. You'll struggle to find one, because whenever you try to divide stuff by 0 to make a paradox, you'll just end up setting your equation to 0=0.

Fight me.

Dude, if 1/0 = 0, then 0 Times 0 = 1.
Let’s even go further than that. If 2/0 = 0 as well, then 0 Times 0 = 2.
Now 1=2.
Your definition sucks.

The limit as x approaches 0 of 1/x does not exist (as it is positive infinity from the right but negative infinity from the left). As a result 1/0 does not exist.

[Fury]

Dude, if 1/0 = 0, then 0 Times 0 = 1.
Let’s even go further than that. If 2/0 = 0 as well, then 0 Times 0 = 2.
Now 1=2.
Your definition sucks.

The limit as x approaches 0 of 1/x does not exist (as it is positive infinity from the right but negative infinity from the left). As a result 1/0 does not exist.

That explanation is exactly what I said.

Just look at a graph people and understand it must be undefined.

[yzb25]

If, 0x420=0, so 0/0 must be 420, but that's not true.

If I understood correctly, your proof says:

0*420=0
so (0*420)/0=0/0
so (0/0)*420=0/0
so 1*420=1

However, this makes the assumption that 0/0=1. In other words, you're assuming the rule of cancellation is true in all cases. There is no good reason to assume an algebraic rule holds true in all cases. In fact, most of the algebraic rules you learn in school have special cases in which they break down. That's what I was trying to address with this bit:

But this makes the assumption that the algebraic rule of cancellation works for 0/0.

It's not abnormal for some algebraic rule to break down when 0 is involved (for example, 0^a is 0 for all numbers except a=0, because 0^0 is typically defined to be 1). I regard this as another case of the rule breaking down for special cases like 0.

To address aamirus:

Dude, if 1/0 = 0, then 0 Times 0 = 1.
Let’s even go further than that. If 2/0 = 0 as well, then 0 Times 0 = 2.
Now 1=2.
Your definition sucks.

The limit as x approaches 0 of 1/x does not exist (as it is positive infinity from the right but negative infinity from the left). As a result 1/0 does not exist.

Again, if I've understood correctly, your proof goes:

0=1/0=2/0
so (1/0)*0=(2/0)*0
so 1*(0/0)=2*(0/0)

Which again assumes 0/0=1. But if we define 1/0=0, clearly 0/0=/=1. Clearly 0/0=0*(1/0)=0*(0)=0. Again, I direct you to what I wrote above.

It's true that the function 1/x now has a discontinuity at 0, with our definition. However, there's lots of functions that have discontinuities that we use every day. There's no special rule that says the only functions that make sense are the ones that are continuous everywhere.

Is there some singularity in my reasoning that I'm missing here?

[DJarJar]

If I understood correctly, your proof says:

0*420=0
so (0*420)/0=0/0
so (0/0)*420=0/0
so 1*420=1

However, this makes the assumption that 0/0=1. In other words, you're assuming the rule of cancellation is true in all cases. There is no good reason to assume an algebraic rule holds true in all cases. In fact, most of the algebraic rules you learn in school have special cases in which they break down. That's what I was trying to address with this bit:



To address aamirus:



Again, if I've understood correctly, your proof goes:

0=1/0=2/0
so (1/0)*0=(2/0)*0
so 1*(0/0)=2*(0/0)

Which again assumes 0/0=1. But if we define 1/0=0, clearly 0/0=/=1. Clearly 0/0=0*(1/0)=0*(0)=0. Again, I direct you to what I wrote above.

It's true that the function 1/x now has a discontinuity at 0, with our definition. However, there's lots of functions that have discontinuities that we use every day. There's no special rule that says the only functions that make sense are the ones that are continuous everywhere.

Is there some singularity in my reasoning that I'm missing here?

Fine, yes, we assumed 0/0 = 1. This is because you cannot choose a definition for 1/0 where 0/0 does not equal 1.


The definition of division is actually just multiplying by a number’s multiplicative inverse. Division is not a real operation.
0^-1 is the multiplicative inverse of zero, so it times 0 (0/0) MUST equal one.

To go further into the crux of the issue:
Zero’s problem is that it has no multiplicative inverse. Nothing times zero equals 1. Thus you cannot define 0^-1

[yzb25]

Fine, yes, we assumed 0/0 = 1. This is because you cannot choose a definition for 1/0 where 0/0 does not equal 1.


The definition of division is actually just multiplying by a number’s multiplicative inverse. Division is not a real operation.
0^-1 is the multiplicative inverse of zero, so it times 0 (0/0) MUST equal one.

To go further into the crux of the issue:
Zero’s problem is that it has no multiplicative inverse. Nothing times zero equals 1. Thus you cannot define 0^-1

You're right about the definition of division, tbf. It looks like you're a tad too informed to take my petty trollbait hahah.

Nevertheless, if you alter the definition of the division function on a field to be:
"If a=/=0, take 1/a to be the multiplicative inverse, take 1/a=0 otherwise"

Then from any field we can get a new field by defining addition to be 1/(1/x+1/y). So the function is a little more meaningful than trollbait. IDK the extent to which people have made use of the field tho. In fact, in general by defining addition to be (((x^(1/a))+(y^(1/a)))^a for any a in Z we get a field. (where the original field is just the special case a=-1)

(I'm presuming you're at least somewhat familiar with abstract algebra from the language you're using).

[SuperJack]

I was hoping this would bring out a number nerd. All we need now is an orpz.

[yzb25]

I was hoping this would bring out a number nerd. All we need now is an orpz.

I'm not a number nerd. I'm an undergrad. That means I still cling to some residual humanity... for now... :3

[SuperJack]

Also, beliefs that people can't be ignorant.
Also, I don't see what's wrong with this thread at all. Dude seemed to just want to talk bout the number 0. There was no toxicity until people started telling him to leave and throw insults.

Rather than throw insults around, just report them, if they are shitposts I move them to CJ out of the way.

Also, you are not going to help someone improve by being mean to them.

[SuperJack]

I think the only thing wrong is the amount of times Arso edits his damn OP lol.

[rumox]

1+1 = window

[yzb25]

1+1 = window

=D

[OzyWho]

Wtf is this discussion about anyway?
You can't divide anything in 0 pieces. There will always be something even if just energy or molecules...

[blinkskater]

Wadu Hek?

[Arsonist]

Wadu Hek?

normie?

[OzyWho]

normie?

Hipster Alert!

[Arsonist]

Hipster Alert!

Eh?

[yzb25]

But now you’re just talking about a different piecewise function. And this function is really just f(a) = multiplicative inverse of a except f(0) = 0. It doesn’t tell us that 1/0, or 1 Times the multiplicative inverse of zero exists as a member of the field of real numbers it just tells us what f(0) is. In that case why not define f(0) = 22?

Heck f doesn’t even need to be a function, let’s let f(0) = 2,15,66

If you want to make division its own separate operation from multiplication then I’ll concede that you can, but then it’s not the “division” we normally use, just something similar.
Or as you stated later in your post you could make a new field, but then we’re not talking about the real numbers anymore anyway so what’s the point

I think I misspoke. I agree division is an established thing and that 0 clearly does not have a multiplicative inverse, I'm just saying that the aforementioned function has a use. If you let f(1,0) = some number not equal to 0 you have to give up more algebraic rules (i.e. 22=1/0=1/(0*0)=(1/0)*(1/0)=22^2). You also do not get a field with that function. You have to define f(1,0)=0 to keep all of the rules (except obviously the f(a,a)=1 rule).

And the field works over the real numbers (because the real numbers are a field) i.e. define addition to be 1/(1/x+1/y) and we get a field over the REAL NUMBERS as well.

My intended point was that this field can probably be used to prove some quality regarding the real numbers more easily than via. other methods (hence making the aforementioned function useful). I'll try it once exams are over. That is "the point".

[DJarJar]

I think I misspoke. I agree division is an established thing and that 0 clearly does not have a multiplicative inverse, I'm just saying that the aforementioned function has a use. If you let f(1,0) = some number not equal to 0 you have to give up more algebraic rules (i.e. 22=1/0=1/(0*0)=(1/0)*(1/0)=22^2). You also do not get a field with that function. You have to define f(1,0)=0 to keep all of the rules (except obviously the f(a,a)=1 rule).

And the field works over the real numbers (because the real numbers are a field) i.e. define addition to be 1/(1/x+1/y) and we get a field over the REAL NUMBERS as well.

My intended point was that this field can probably be used to prove some quality regarding the real numbers more easily than via. other methods (hence making the aforementioned function useful). I'll try it once exams are over. That is "the point".

But how is that a field? You need two operations for a field and so far you've only defined addition.

[yzb25]

But how is that a field? You need two operations for a field and so far you've only defined addition.

multiplication is defined as ordinary multiplication. Forgot to mention that. My bad.

[DJarJar]

multiplication is defined as ordinary multiplication. Forgot to mention that. My bad.

Okay but then where does division come into play? If you're still defining it as multiplicative inverses then the 1/0 = 0 thing still breaks multiplication/division.

[yzb25]

Okay but then where does division come into play? If you're still defining it as multiplicative inverses then the 1/0 = 0 thing still breaks multiplication/division.

Sorry for the late reply. I completely forgot about this thread tbh.

I feel like we've been talking over eachother for the last few posts. As is the case with the root(-1) thing, if we can find a definition that is consistent and also has uses, then the definition is justified, even if the new definition no longer retains the intuition that motivated the original definition in the first place (what number do you multiply with x to get 1? what number do you need to square to get y? yadayadayada).

My definition doesn't give 0 a multiplicative inverse, but it remains consistent with every rule (except obviously a/a, but then again imaginary numbers lose ordering so they ain't perfect either) and has a use (we can use it to define a field, then by proving qualities about the field we can prove qualities regarding the reals).

(p;edit sorry for so many shameless edits XD)

[yzb25]

I agree that 0/0 = 0.

That's one young mind successfully corrupted I suppose.

[Arsonist]

That's one young mind successfully corrupted I suppose.

0x0=0, so 0/0=0.

All 3 numbers are same lol.
It's like 1x1=1 and 1/1=1.

[Chalibluefin]

This is the most stupid argument you could ever start on a fucking mafia forum. There is nothing to explain about dividing zero because you PHYSICALLY cannot divide into zero groups. It is impossible to divide something into nothing, this is basic ass common sense. Don't need these kind of middle school topics in here, kindly f0k off.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

This is the most stupid argument you could ever start on a fucking mafia forum. There is nothing to explain about dividing zero because you PHYSICALLY cannot divide into zero groups. It is impossible to divide something into nothing, this is basic ass common sense. Don't need these kind of middle school topics in here, kindly f0k off.

Well no it's not actually. Because, there are the "complex" numbers, like "i", the square root of -1. It doesn't exist, it's not a R number. So, common sense doesn't work much. And I'm not talking about particles physics.

[Chalibluefin]

Well no it's not actually. Because, there are the "complex" numbers, like "i", the square root of -1. It doesn't exist, it's not a R number. So, common sense doesn't work much. And I'm not talking about particles physics.

0/0 is not a "complex" number though."i' has its uses. There is no imaginary number for 0/0. It is simply labeled as UNDEFINED. Because as someone stated earlier, there is no definition. If there is no definition then it has no use in mathematics whether it be in quantum math, or physics.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

0/0 is not a "complex" number though."i' has its uses. There is no imaginary number for 0/0. It is simply labeled as UNDEFINED. Because as someone stated earlier, there is no definition. If there is no definition then it has no use in mathematics whether it be in quantum math, or physics.

Ah you said it was impossible, not useless. It is as possible as "i" imo. Just totally fucking useless so we shouldn't talk about it :P

[Chalibluefin]

Ah you said it was impossible, not useless. It is as possible as "i" imo. Just totally fucking useless so we shouldn't talk about it :P

Exactly. Someone close this stupid ass thread.

[SuperJack]

0-o Why should I close one of the few Arsonist threads that has managed to stay on topic AND become popular?

[OzyWho]

I just can't figure out if this some sort of trolling by you guys by taking this topic serious or are actually taking it serious?

[yzb25]

I just can't figure out if this some sort of trolling by you guys by taking this topic serious or are actually taking it serious?

Nah the conversation is actually happening lol.

[Apocist]

please understand that math is a human 'creation' and itself flawed. math isn't some perfect answer and won't always be right. it can be broken like anything else.

[Arsonist]

please understand that math is a human 'creation' and itself flawed. math isn't some perfect answer and won't always be right. it can be broken like anything else.

Math is a just system of counting things.

Maybe only addition, substraction, multiplication and division may help you in the life, but other functions are just usless.
When in the life "factorial" helped you? Never! It's a usless mathematical function, that created a lot of more usless mathematical functions and nothing, besides it.

Even the primitive recursives's functions count is equal to infinity, and most of them, like "tetration, pentation, hexation and e.t.c." are COMPLETELY USLESS.
I'll explain these functions later, and what they do too.

Also, division by 0 will NEVER help you in the life, because the "division by 0" has no sense at all.

So... Dividing by 0, means that you'll slice your cake by 0 parts? That's a big nonsensical bullshit.

[yzb25]

Math is a just system of counting things.

Maybe only addition, substraction, multiplication and division may help you in the life, but other functions are just usless.
When in the life "factorial" helped you? Never! It's a usless mathematical function, that created a lot of more usless mathematical functions and nothing, besides it.

Even the primitive recursives's functions count is equal to infinity, and most of them, like "tetration, pentation, hexation and e.t.c." are COMPLETELY USLESS.
I'll explain these functions later, and what they do too.

Also, division by 0 will NEVER help you in the life, because the "division by 0" has no sense at all.

So... Dividing by 0, means that you'll slice your cake by 0 parts? That's a big nonsensical bullshit.

Though to the layman math is just subtraction, division, multiplication, addition and counting, there are many branches of mathematics that have been used by specialists in all sorts of ways. Some of these branches are completely unrelated to counting.

Also, the factorial is not useless. It appears in the equation for the Power Series (which underlie how your computer finds accurate approximations for trig functions and exponential functions... or at least used to) and appears all over the place in statistics (which is very important to real life). It probably appears in loads of other places that I'm too ignorant to know about (RIP).

please understand that math is a human 'creation' and itself flawed. math isn't some perfect answer and won't always be right. it can be broken like anything else.

I vaguely remember you replied to some long ass post I made a while back about morality. I forgot to reply (soz), but I found your's and SP's reply really thought provoking.

idk enough to comment on the perfection of math. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem seem to always come up when people have that debate, but I still need to read like 100 more pages of this book before I even know the proof LOL.