Division by zero

Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

Thread images: 1

Anonymous

Division by zero 2016-02-09 18:27:25 Post No. 7845901

[Report] Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]

Division by zero 2016-02-09 18:27:25 Post No. 7845901

[Report] Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]

Why cannot divide by zero? Tell me /Sci/ mathematical dumbos.

>>

>>7845901

You can't divide by real numbers since they don't actually exist

>>

>>7845901

Back to >>>/r/eddit

>>

consider the function 1/x for any real x. as you get really close to 0 from either side, the output of the function gets bigger and bigger.

what should the output be when x = 0? it must be bigger than all the other outputs, which cover all real numbers. so the function must be infinite there. But infinity is not a real number, so 1/0 is undefined.

>>

>>7845901

4/0 = 0 = 5/0

4/0 = 5/0

(4/0)*0 = 5

5 = 0

>>

>>7845913

What about the largest "cantor infinity" possible?

>>

>>7845917

Who said 5/0=0?

>>

>>7845901

It's excluded axiomatically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)#Definition_and_illustration

Ignoring that, you could show that if you allowed division by 0 (while maintaining other all other properties of division) you can reach a contradiction.

>>

>>7845922

Seems like some idiot mathematician excluded it and every other mathematician followed.

>>

>>7845920

You can follow the same logic for why 4/0 = 0.

You have 5 apples and keep them yourself and eat them so there are no apples left.

>>

>>7845931

Apples are made of energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

>>

The way I've always thought of it is that 0 is not a number in the same sense that 1, 2, sqrt(2), pi, e, etc... are numbers. 0 is an absence of a number. It's like an empty position. It's a null value. So dividing by it simply doesn't make any sense since it doesn't have the same properties as every other number.

>>

>>7845955

0 is the set of the empty set. Which, us not the absense of a set. Dumbass.

>>

>>7845964

*is

>>

>>7845926

Did you read the second part of my post?

Suppose that we can divide by 0 but we leave all the usual rules intact then, further suppose that [math] a,b > 0 [/math] then [math] \frac {a} {0} = b \implies \frac {a0} {0} = a = b0 = 0 [/math] so we reach the conclusion [math] a = 0 [/math]. But a is greater than 0 by hypothesis, thus we have a contradiction. [math] \blacksquare [/math]

We could go on and show more contradictions, but I'm not going to do that one is enough.

>>

>>7845901

if you divide by something approaching zero, you get somthing that approaches infinity.

But dividing by a zero makes quite a problem, because uh... it's certainly not infinity, because the reverse operation does not yield zero...

So it's "undefined" then

>>

>>7845926

If you chose to include division by zero, you get a different algebraic structure that is not a Field, like Complex or Reals.

It's not that you can't, its just that if you chose to include then you get all new properties.

Not that explaining that to you will accomplish any good. You seem intent on being uneducated.

>>

>>7845901

[math]0^{+}=0[/math]

>>

>>7848057

You bumped this thread, from the last page, to post that? I fucking hate faggots like you.

>>

>>7845913

Not true, as you approach 0 from left side results get smaller and smaller

Thread images: 1

Thread DB ID: 513251

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.

This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.

If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's