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?

[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.

[SuperJack]

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

[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.

[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

[Arsonist]

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.

He made 87 posts and can you quote actually a good post made by him? That's impossible to find a good post made by him.

[OzyWho]

Who is chalibluerin?

Stealthbombers Smurf.

[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.

[Arsonist]

Stealthbombers Smurf.

He has 2 smurfs?

I see, he says too much good stuff about him and insults me.
Also this account supports stealthbomber and has low post count.

Also, stealthbomber insults me, because he's egoistic + he isn't a good member either.

[Scvmurderer]

Stealthbombers Smurf.

Heresy, he adheres to the true faith

[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.

[Stealthbomber16]

Stealthbombers Smurf.

Actually, I have a group with all my smurfs. Chali is someone else. A bit blunt for my taste.

He made 87 posts and can you quote actually a good post made by him? That's impossible to find a good post made by him.

leave.

Also, stealthbomber insults me, because he's egoistic + he isn't a good member either.

Obvious troll bait but, sure I’ll bite. Mobile formatting warning.

I insult you, correct. You deserve to be insulted. You’re toxic and erratic and you fill the forum with shit that nobody wants to read. I already posted my 5 pictures of you responding to threads up to 4 years old, which you didn’t really formulate a response to.

In fact, you don’t really respond to anything. I present cold hard facts with sources for you to refute and you don’t respond to any of it. I’ve shut down two different communism threads because you’re just immature and instead of having a debate you choose to run and fling insults from afar. I can’t wait for your next thread to dodge this post, because goodness knows you won’t try to respond or improve, or maybe even admit that there is a tiny, insignificant chance that you could maybe be wrong.

But yes, I’m the egotist. I’m egotistical for shutting down your outdated and irrelevant political views with facts and logic.

As for being a good member, you’d think that if other people shared your opinion I wouldn’t continue coming back time and time again since 2015.

What makes it even worse are your blatant lies. I refuse to believe that someone who grew up in the USSR and has been alive as long as you have would be as totally ignorant as you are. It baffles my mind. You are negligent and ignorant, and if you had anything to say about these claims, you would’ve already instead of passively aggressively leaving visitor messages on my profile.

Go ahead, ignore this post. If there isn’t a response, you only validate me.

[OzyWho]

I refuse to believe that someone who grew up in the USSR and has been alive as long as you have would be as totally ignorant as you are

How old you think Arsonist is and why?
This age assumption feels like it came out of nowhere.

[Stealthbomber16]

How old you think Arsonist is and why?
This age assumption feels like it came out of nowhere.

Middle school
Source: posted in very similar quantities with no content when I was in middle school

[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.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

He has 2 smurfs?

I see, he says too much good stuff about him and insults me.
Also this account supports stealthbomber and has low post count.

Also, stealthbomber insults me, because he's egoistic + he isn't a good member either.

Then me too because I support stealth

[Marshmallow Marshall]

leave.

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

[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.

[Arsonist]

Actually, I have a group with all my smurfs. Chali is someone else. A bit blunt for my taste.








Obvious troll bait but, sure I’ll bite. Mobile formatting warning.

I insult you, correct. You deserve to be insulted. You’re toxic and erratic and you fill the forum with shit that nobody wants to read. I already posted my 5 pictures of you responding to threads up to 4 years old, which you didn’t really formulate a response to.

In fact, you don’t really respond to anything. I present cold hard facts with sources for you to refute and you don’t respond to any of it. I’ve shut down two different communism threads because you’re just immature and instead of having a debate you choose to run and fling insults from afar. I can’t wait for your next thread to dodge this post, because goodness knows you won’t try to respond or improve, or maybe even admit that there is a tiny, insignificant chance that you could maybe be wrong.

But yes, I’m the egotist. I’m egotistical for shutting down your outdated and irrelevant political views with facts and logic.

As for being a good member, you’d think that if other people shared your opinion I wouldn’t continue coming back time and time again since 2015.

What makes it even worse are your blatant lies. I refuse to believe that someone who grew up in the USSR and has been alive as long as you have would be as totally ignorant as you are. It baffles my mind. You are negligent and ignorant, and if you had anything to say about these claims, you would’ve already instead of passively aggressively leaving visitor messages on my profile.

Go ahead, ignore this post. If there isn’t a response, you only validate me.

You're egoistic + isn't a good member.
All said above is 100% true.
Tell me why you're a good user, than saying you're a good user.

Only your smurf charlibluefin shares your opinion, nobody does it either.

Also, this thread wasn't created for debates, you dumbass. Look up.
You forgot where you post your flaming? Create another thread, this one wasn't created for your off-topic flaming.
As in 2015, was dumbass and dumbass nowdays. Another toxic kid... I bet 100%, on question "Who won WW2", he'll say "USA", because he's a kid.

[Scvmurderer]

You're egoistic + isn't a good member.
All said above is 100% true.
Tell me why you're a good user, than saying you're a good user.

Only your smurf charlibluefin shares your opinion, nobody does it either.

Also, this thread wasn't created for debates, you dumbass. Look up.
You forgot where you post your flaming? Create another thread, this one wasn't created for your off-topic flaming.
As in 2015, was dumbass and dumbass nowdays. Another toxic kid... I bet 100%, on question "Who won WW2", he'll say "USA", because he's a kid.

Fucking heretics, chalibluefin is a disciple of the dark lord, learn your main players arson

[Arsonist]

Fucking heretics, chalibluefin is a disciple of the dark lord, learn your main players arson

I still wonder who is this guy with 87 posts.

[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?

[rumox]

1+1 = window

[yzb25]

1+1 = window

=D

[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).

[Arsonist]

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).

I agree that 0/0 = 0.

But isn't the division is the opposite to the multiplication? The exponentiation has nothing to do here lol.

If X/Y=Z, so the Y*Z=X and X/Z=Y.

Example: 890442/1337=666, so 666*1337=890442 and 890442/666=1337.

[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...

[DJarJar]

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).

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

[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".

[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.

[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.

[Chalibluefin]

Fucking heretics, chalibluefin is a disciple of the dark lord, learn your main players arson

Thanks BB. CHOO CHOO

[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.