Our Numbers are a Set which consists of groups of the Primary number 1. A={1}. The function Division (x/y) is an interaction with that set of numbers (x) consistent with the interactor (y). Thus divide by zero is a disengagement from that numberset.
A DIVIDED BY 0 = NOT A
This means that we discover a new primary and set unrelated to the previous set in all ways except that it is not the previous set.
/A={@}
Therefore any number divided by zero is disengaged with and a Xia-Number is achieved.
Discuss.
I just liked to divide zero by zero. Zero times zero is zero, so it should work perfectly in reverse.
The laws of mathematics are against you on that one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
My secondary school math teacher claimed that anything divided by zero equals one. Then again, my primary school math teacher claimed that 0°C=0°F, so my trust in math teachers is pretty low.
/facepalm
I'm so glad I never personally had a moron like this for a math teacher. My sister did for Algebra II and I basically taught her the entire curriculum.
Nope. You cannot divide by zero.
Technically, that is still an answer.
*****
dividing by zero will awaken great C'thulhu to swallow our souls and drive humanity insane. After all, where do you think Atlantis went...
Cthulu isn't even an Old One, just a prophet thereof.
Dividing by zero causes the universe to explode and instantly reform exactly the same.
It's unverifiable!
Well, going by university calculus anything divided by 0 is "undefined".
Please don't get into calculus...little makes me more angry than calculus.
I think 0/0= 0, sence 0x0=0 and to divide, you have to find what 2 numbers multiply to get it...... wait, nrm, it's not 0, it's x were x can be ANYTHING
Please don't get into calculus...little makes me more angry than calculus.
Calculus rules. I give thanks to Newton and Leibniz every day, right before doing integrals for fun.
(And I'm only barely kidding.)
Without calculus, no statistics and probabilities, and a lot less tools to help me play a better game of Magic: The Gathering, or Poker.
And BTW:
X/0 has either no answers (if X != 0) or has the entire set of reals as an answer (if X = 0).
Calculus rules.
Calculus rules!
Chain Rule: dy/dx = dy/du * du/dx
Product Rule: (u*v)' = u * v' + v * u'
Quotient Rule: f'(x) = [g'(x)*h(x)-g(x)*h'(x)]/h(x)2
...
;)
I'm going to miss that universe.
0/0 = a cute lil face looking over your left shoulder.
Can't you see it? Can't you see what even a child knows to be true? Aww... lil chilluns wit dey special sight.
0/0
Let's name me. Somebody give me a name so that from now on when someone asks what is zero divided by zero, we can just say 'Larry' or some such.
...Since it is not itself a number you can't divide by it any more than you can divide by sheep or multiply by elevator, which is why math chokes when you try to do it.
Divide by 0 is only a problem for math, not logic. That's cos 0 is not a number, it is a concept - a placeholder representing a lack of a number. Since it is not itself a number you can't divide by it any more than you can divide by sheep or multiply by elevator, which is why math chokes when you try to do it.
You may not be able to divide by sheep or multiply by elevator, but you can divide sheep by elevator. Just put them at the bottom of the shaft, cut the cable, and "Baaaa--SPLAT!"
_Sheep_ = Mutton
Elevator
Q.E.D.
-------------------
Oh, and by the way:
That's cos 0 is not a number, it is a concept
False.
cos 0 = 1
:D
You may not be able to divide by sheep or multiply by elevator, but you can divide sheep by elevator. Just put them at the bottom of the shaft, cut the cable, and "Baaaa--SPLAT!"
_Sheep_ = Mutton
Elevator
Q.E.D.
Mmmm... math is tasty!
Oh, and by the way:That's cos 0 is not a number, it is a concept
False.
So, true then?
cos 0 = 1
Because, apparently, False = True.
So, true then?
Because, apparently, False = True.
He said "cos 0 isn't a number" which I then proved false by showing that cos 0 =1, as 1 is in fact a number. Oh, I see what you're trying to imply, but you can't convince me that "true" and "false" are numbers!
He said "cos 0 isn't a number" which I then proved false by showing that cos 0 =1, as 1 is in fact a number. Oh, I see what you're trying to imply, but you can't convince me that "true" and "false" are numbers!
Yikes, I'm afraid computers and computer scientists across the globe disagree with you.
I think he was misspelling "because."
Tenzhi missed that you were referencing the cosine function.
Yikes, I'm afraid computers and computer scientists across the globe disagree with you.
Speaking as a programmer myself, I can definitively say that '1' and '0' are not "true" and "false" by any stretch of the imagination. A binary bit on and a binary bit off are true and false, respectively, but not 0x00110001 and 0x00110010.
I think he was misspelling "because."
I know that.
Tenzhi missed that you were referencing the cosine function.
I also know that. :D
Speaking as a programmer myself, I can definitively say that '1' and '0' are not "true" and "false" by any stretch of the imagination. A binary bit on and a binary bit off are true and false, respectively, but not 0x00110001 and 0x00110010.
Now hold on, are you talking about the chars '1' and '0' or the ints 1 and 0.
The ints 1 and 0 do pass as true and false values.
Now hold on, are you talking about the chars '1' and '0'
Right.
1 and 0 on these forums are chars; you can't declare an int in a text editor. Semantics, my dear Watson. :DAnd besides, I wasn't saying that 1 and 0 (the ints) weren't numbers, I was saying that true and false aren't numbers. 1 and 0 resolve as booleans, but that doesn't mean that booleans are numbers. The relationship is noncommutative.
1/0 can be solved using limits.
1/(1/2) = 2. 1/(1/3) = 3. 1/(1/100) = 100. 1/(1/1000) = 1000. 1/(1/n) = n
0 = 1/(infinity), by looking at the limit as n approaches infinity of 1/n (the result keeps getting smaller until we approach zero at n = infinity).
Therefore,
1/0 = 1/(1/(infinity)) = infinity.
I'm not sure, but I think by some definitions infinity can be included in the domain of the reals. Someone care to check this?
So, who's up for calculating ln(-sqrt(-5))? Or how about integral(exp(x^2)/exp(x/(x^2-1)))? (BTW the first is ln(5)/2-i*pi/2; the other is too hard for my ti-92+ and probably has some erf functions in it).
Anyone for some noneuclidean fun? I've got some Christoffel symbols laying around here somewhere looking for an affine connection... :D
Right.
And besides, I wasn't saying that 1 and 0 (the ints) weren't numbers, I was saying that true and false aren't numbers. 1 and 0 resolve as booleans, but that doesn't mean that booleans are numbers. The relationship is noncommutative.
Psha! You can if you put them in Courier (New OR Old)!!
<.<
True enough.
Psha! You can if you put them in Courier (New OR Old)!!
<.<
True enough.
Just because I typeA/0={@}
OK moving on...if A/0={/A} because 1 is the Primary of our Set then what happens when we divide five by zero?
Done.
Yikes, I'm afraid computers and computer scientists across the globe disagree with you.
I think he was misspelling "because."
Tenzhi missed that you were referencing the cosine function.
Had he put COS instead of cos I might've caught it. Maybe.
Sadly, though, I've seen arguments that 0=1, and am far too accustomed to internet shorthand.
Speaking as a programmer myself, I can definitively say that '1' and '0' are not "true" and "false" by any stretch of the imagination. A binary bit on and a binary bit off are true and false, respectively, but not 0x00110001 and 0x00110010.
That sort of semantic is a downward spiral, as in that case 0x00110001 isn't the number it's being used to represent either, but rather ten unrelated characters. And then if one tried to represent those ten characters one would end up with a hundred characters that weren't the numbers. Etc.
Done.
Ah, but you didn't just type that, you did it in Python. That's the "Until you get the memory involved the right way" clause I mentioned.
Had he put COS instead of cos I might've caught it. Maybe.
Yeah, yeah.
Sadly, though, I've seen arguments that 0=1, and am far too accustomed to internet shorthand.
I've seen 0 = 1 arguments as well, but usually they're witty and elegant enough that I find them funny rather than stupid.
That sort of semantic is a downward spiral, as in that case 0x00110001 isn't the number it's being used to represent either, but rather ten unrelated characters. And then if one tried to represent those ten characters one would end up with a hundred characters that weren't the numbers. Etc.
I know. Isn't it wonderful? :D
I've seen 0 = 1 arguments as well, but usually they're witty and elegant enough that I find them funny rather than stupid.
Indeed. I wasn't even trying to disparage this one, though it turned out it wasn't the argument I thought it was. It was just the fact that it was coupled with a declaration of "false" particularly amused me given the connotations of 0 and 1.
I know. Isn't it wonderful? :D
I thought it was hilarious, but I'm told my sense of humour tends to be dry and nerdy at times.
I thought it was hilarious, but I'm told my sense of humour tends to be dry and nerdy at times.
That's the best kind!
Maybe.
Well, I can PROVE that you can divide by zero!
Let x = y.
thus
x-y=0.
Add (x-y) to both sides:
x-y+x-y=2x-2y=2(x-y)=(x-y)
Divide both sides by (x-y):
(2(x-y))/(x-y)=(x-y)/(x-y)
or
2=1.
This is a roundabout, indirect way of proving that you can divide something by zero, but it requires variables.
Divide both sides by (x-y):
(2(x-y))/(x-y)=(x-y)/(x-y)
or
2=1.
Bzzt! You've already proved that (x-y)=0, therefore you can't divide by it.
X/0 can be rewritten as X*1/0.
1/0 can be solved using limits.
Hmm, no. You can solve lim 1/X with x -> 0. That's not the same thing as solving 1/0, which has no solution.
Bzzt! You've already proved that (x-y)=0, therefore you can't divide by it.
You missed the point - the last line.
Cheers, LT.
I thought it was hilarious, but I'm told my sense of humour tends to be dry and nerdy at times.
So is mine. Like Ocarina_Guy said, it's the best kind, and IMO the only kind worth having. :D
Well, I can PROVE that you can divide by zero!
Let x = y.
thus
x-y=0.
Add (x-y) to both sides:
x-y+x-y=2x-2y=2(x-y)=(x-y)
Divide both sides by (x-y):
(2(x-y))/(x-y)=(x-y)/(x-y)
or
2=1.
This is a roundabout, indirect way of proving that you can divide something by zero, but it requires variables.
Except that you have actually proven the opposite. It's a textbook case of proof by contradiction.
Given x = y.
Prove It is not possible to divide by 0.
- Assume it is possible to divide by 0.
- Add (x-y) to both sides:
x-y+x-y=2x-2y=2(x-y)=(x-y). - Divide both sides by (x-y):
(2(x-y))/(x-y)=(x-y)/(x-y). - Simplify: 2=1.
- We know 2 =/= 1.
- We achieved this result by dividing by (x-y).
- From Given and 6, we achieved this result by dividing by 0.
- From 5 and 7, we know that dividing by 0 is invalid.
- It is not possible to divide by 0. Q.E.D.
Also, if you allow that 0/0 == 1, you can get infinite energy, make hovercrafts that use 1 plate capacitors to fly, and make time run backwards by running electricity one direction down a Faraday Cage while you travel the other direction up it.
So, X/0 is Infinity for possitive numbers, 1 if X == 0, and Negative infinity for negative numbers.
If you disagree with me, you are wrong. I do not have to support my answers, as only an intellectual defective would disagree with me, and I am not obligated to answer people who are so obviously wrong.
Good day.
Divide by 0 is only a problem for math, not logic. That's cos 0 is not a number, it is a concept - a placeholder representing a lack of a number. Since it is not itself a number you can't divide by it any more than you can divide by sheep or multiply by elevator, which is why math chokes when you try to do it.
I disagree.
0 is a number, it represents nothingness.
If not having something invalidates it as a number, then -1 and all negative numbers are also only concepts and not numbers. You can't have -1 apples. The least number of apples you can have is 0, or by your definition 1, since if you have 0 apples you have none and don't have apples at all. Maybe you have oranges. But I digress.
You can never give away more apples than you have, never reach a state where you have negative apples, such that gaining apples brings you up to having no apples. Ergo, Negative numbers are a placeholder for a concept, not actual numbers. However, if I divide by -1, the world does not end. Math still works. If you accept my previous statements, I.E. X/0== Inf, -X/0== -Inf, 0/0==1, you see that 0 can function as a number, just as negative numbers do, and math still works.
And that's just negative numbers, we haven't gotten into Sqrt(-1) yet...
Is (i) a number? If something as abstract and unrepresentable as Sqrt(-1) is a number, the why isn't 0?
I'll tell you. It's because you listen to your stupid math teachers, who don't believe in free energy, time inversion, and levitation.
Well I say, To Hell With Parliamentary Procedure!
I shall divide by Zero!
Feel my wrath!
Fools! They said I was mad! They all call me mad! Well, they'll see. You'll all see! Just as soon as I get this damn levitating tank working... Stupid thing... Don't know why it doesn't work... All the 0's cancelled out of the equations...
You can't have -1 apples.
Um...yes you can...even at stringtheory level you can have negative apples. ITs about the possibility of existance. There can be a qauntum hole where the apple should be. That way when some bozo interacts with the hole, he becomes the apple.
This is just like that chicken and the Egg thing...They are simultaneous events of the same group object. The egg is what is left of the chicken in that part of his possibility bandwidth because some bozo thought evolution was real and tried to impose his reality on the universe.
One idiot with a God complex and you are evolving from a monkey...
It is just multiplication of reciprocals...
This thread makes me very glad that I pretty much flunked math in secondary school. I could never forgive myself for understanding a fraction of what's going on here.
At least it was in secondary school. If it were elementary school, you could never forgive yourself for understanding a fraction, period. :D
Without calculus, no statistics and probabilities,
This is untrue. Without calculus there would still be probabilities, we just wouldnt know how to quantify them fully.
But you can have -1$, you can have many of them and phone calls from the bank every day.:D
At least it was in secondary school. If it were elementary school, you could never forgive yourself for understanding a fraction, period. :D
All numbers are concepts.
But you can have -1$, you can have many of them and phone calls from the bank every day.:D
Yes, you can have the concept of debt.
You can have a debt of one apple, for example, which would be represented by -1 apples.
However, it's a concept, like 0.
You can't actually have a NEGATIVE APPLE, which when combined with a normal apple cancels out.
You never posses an object that, when placed in a sack with one apple, results in opening the sack and having nothing.
Even an antimatter apple wouldn't be a negative apple, as when combined with a regular apple, they would release energy with a value equal to the potential of both apples, not result in total nullification, as a 1 + -1 situation would.
In short, Negative numbers are an abstract concept, just as 0 is. IF you can divide by negative numbers, you can divide by abstract concepts, and therefore you CAN divide by zero. Deal with it.
Now, back to my perpetual motion machine...
In short, Negative numbers are an abstract concept, just as 0 is. IF you can divide by negative numbers, you can divide by abstract concepts, and therefore you CAN divide by zero. Deal with it.
Except that negative numbers represent a specific quantity while 0 is just a placeholder. It literally means, and has a value of, nothing.
No, you're wrong.
Ah, but how can anyone be right when numbers and mathematics are figments of the human imagination?
0 is a number, it represents nothingness.
0 ≠ {} (i.e. 0 is not the same as the empty set)
If you accept my previous statements, I.E. X/0== Inf, -X/0== -Inf, 0/0==1, you see that 0 can function as a number, just as negative numbers do, and math still works.
No, it doesn't. If X/0 == Inf., then (with X as any number):
X/0 = ∞
<=> X = 0
...You can't actually have a NEGATIVE APPLE...
Behold, the negative apple.
heh, I couldn't resist. :P
However, i do agree with you, there is no such thing as a 'Negative apple', or something that cancels out an apple. Debt is not the same, even though it represents a negative apple. Because, even if you have a debt of 1 apple, if you pick up an apple, you still have 1 apple, not 0, until you repay your debt.
However, i do agree with you, there is no such thing as a 'Negative apple', or something that cancels out an apple. Debt is not the same, even though it represents a negative apple. Because, even if you have a debt of 1 apple, if you pick up an apple, you still have 1 apple, not 0, until you repay your debt.
Well, if your definition of negative apple is "something that cancels out an apple," an antimatter apple would fit that pretty well. ;)
Well, if your definition of negative apple is "something that cancels out an apple," an antimatter apple would fit that pretty well. ;)
...hmm....what happens if you eat an anti-matter apple? :o
have you effectively eaten 1 less apple in your lifetime?
Or do you just die from having eaten anti-matter? :P
...hmm....what happens if you eat an anti-matter apple? :o
have you effectively eaten 1 less apple in your lifetime?
Or do you just die from having eaten anti-matter? :P
I think you explode due to anti-matter/matter collision
...hmm....what happens if you eat an anti-matter apple? :o
have you effectively eaten 1 less apple in your lifetime?
Or do you just die from having eaten anti-matter? :P
If you go to an Italian restaurant, eat some antipasta as an appetizer, then pasta for your entree...are you still hungry?
If you go to an Italian restaurant, eat some antipasta as an appetizer, then pasta for your entree...are you still hungry?
It depends, was the absolute value of the entree greater than, less than, or equal to the absolute value of the appetizer?
It depends, was the absolute value of the entree greater than, less than, or equal to the absolute value of the appetizer?
It depends--how much time passed between eating the antipasta and the pasta?
It depends--how much time passed between eating the antipasta and the pasta?
For the sake of argument, we'll assume it's negligible.
For the sake of argument, we'll assume it's negligible.
Good--if any time had passed, the antipasta would have started disappearing as it ate through your stomach wall. :D
I would say that the absolute values do not exist. Because every person will derive greater or lesser enjoyment from either the appetizer or the entree than someone else, there are no absolute values--only relative ones.
Good--if any time had passed, the antipasta would have started disappearing as it ate through your stomach wall. :D
I would say that the absolute values do not exist. Because every person will derive greater or lesser enjoyment from either the appetizer or the entree than someone else, there are no absolute values--only relative ones.
Alright, then let me rephrase:
Is the volume of the appetizer equal to the volume of the entree?
well, it seems we have a start going. I'll expect your scientific hypothesis on my desk monday morning, after which we can begin the testing.
Right now, between posts I'm rewriting documentation for work that appears that it was written the first time around by people whose grammar and spelling skills make the usual trolls around here look like Nobel laureates. I don't want to hear anything about "on my desk Monday morning" again, ever.Alright, then let me rephrase:
Is the volume of the appetizer equal to the volume of the entree?
Better. :D
Assume the volumes are identical to an arbitrary level of accuracy.
Better. :D
Assume the volumes are identical to an arbitrary level of accuracy.
Oh well in that case you'd be as hungry as you were before, right before you ate.
Oh well in that case you'd be as hungry as you were before, right before you ate.
So my rhetorical question was right all along, hmm?
Furthermore, 0/0 is undefined.
These are well known facts, so there is little reason to discuss. Try searching the internet or a library for more info. To all other arguments to the contrary: It is almost certain you used a logical fallacy to prove your point. Look up info on logic for more information.
Try this logical fallacy for an example:
If it is raining and I go outside without protection I get wet.
Therefore:
If I got wet I must have gone outside in the rain without protection.
Totally false. But people make other such illogical arguments all the time about things that are less obvious, and since the topic is less obvious and since they don't know how to use logic, they don't realize that their argument didn't prove squat. Others have a hard time convincing such illogical people, because the illogical say they "proved" their point.
How 'bout another false proof, in limerick form?
If A equals B (so I say),
And we multiply both sides by A,
Then we'll see that A squared,
When with AB compared,
Are the same. Remove B squared. Okay?
Both sides we will factorize. See?
Now each side contains A minus B.
We'll divide through by A
Minus B, and ole!
A plus B equals B. Oh whoopee!
But since I said A equals B,
B plus B equals B, you'll agree?
So if B equals one,
Then this sum I have done,
Proves that two equals one. Q.E.D.
(No, I didn't make that up. My Google-fu is strong.)