Explaining dividing by zero. - Page 2
Register

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 64 of 64
  1. ISO #51

    Re: Explaining dividing by zero.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chalibluefin View Post
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  2. ISO #52

  3. ISO #53

  4. ISO #54

    Re: Explaining dividing by zero.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chalibluefin View Post
    Exactly. Someone close this stupid ass thread.
    Nope it's a real thread about something serious, and some people ACTUALLY gave their opinions! AND ARSONIST MADE IT! IT'S AN HISTORICAL DAAAY!!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by The Lawyer View Post
    Besides your lamp and your refridgerators, do you find anyone else suspicious?
    Quote Originally Posted by oliverz144 View Post
    it looks like many, e.g. MM and lag, suffered under the influence of paopan. However there is a victim: frinckles. He left the path of rationality and fully dived into the parallel reality of baby shark, king shark, and soviet union pizzas.
    Spoiler : The meaning of life :

  5. ISO #55

    Re: Explaining dividing by zero.

    What is the point of calling to close threads anyway? Arsonist could always make more if he wanted.


    And it's not a pointless discussion. 1/0 is a perfectly valid element in a set where 1/0 is the only element, for example. Just because something is not part of our normal Real number mathematics doesn't mean it's completely irrelevant
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  6. ISO #56

    Re: Explaining dividing by zero.

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    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)
    Last edited by yzb25; May 7th, 2018 at 01:17 PM.

  7. ISO #57

    Re: Explaining dividing by zero.

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    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)
    But what I’m trying to say is if the a/a rule isn’t followed, then by definition it’s not a field
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

  8. ISO #58

  9. ISO #59

    Re: Explaining dividing by zero.

    Quote Originally Posted by aamirus View Post
    But what I’m trying to say is if the a/a rule isn’t followed, then by definition it’s not a field
    Ohhhhh.

    Nah, there's a misunderstanding here. The division on the REALS has been defined as previously stated, but division on this FIELD is defined to be ordinary division XD.

  10. ISO #60

  11. ISO #61

    Re: Explaining dividing by zero.

    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    Ohhhhh.

    Nah, there's a misunderstanding here. The division on the REALS has been defined as previously stated, but division on this FIELD is defined to be ordinary division XD.
    In the same way addition is defined differently FOR THE FIELD, one can define division for the field to be the original division w/o the 0 shenanigans.

  12. ISO #62

    Re: Explaining dividing by zero.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    Look what you have caused. Seems like everyone who posted is now confused about their own gender and are venting their frustration into opinions.

  13. ISO #63

    Re: Explaining dividing by zero.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocist View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Arsonist; May 8th, 2018 at 01:32 AM.
    [SIGPIC]Why you hold cursor on my signature picture?[/SIGPIC] A very annoying SC2Mafia player.

  14. ISO #64

    Re: Explaining dividing by zero.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arsonist View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Apocist View Post
    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.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •