Prove me wrong >protip: you can't

>>720560587
That's not how orders of operations work, but you already know that.

dividing by zero is not a defined operation, you simply cant do it

>>720560754
either way, anything divisable by zero or multiplied by zero cant be defined so is inherently zero.
Conclusion, OP's a fucking Idiot

>>720560766
As well, multiplying anything by zero results in zero (x * 0 = 0).

So the correct answer is zero. Sorry OP, you have been proven wrong.

>>720560842
>cant be defined
>is inherently zero

>>720560963
Any real number multiplied by 0 is 0, but 7/0 is undefined, and certainly not a real number.

>>720560963
You're wrong too. The result is not zero, there's no answer.

>>720560587
And OP, your theory is very interesting, but there's a mathematical error in page 1, line 1, which invalidates the rest of the paper.

>>720560587
ok then, assign a real number to 7/0

>>720560587
Undefined times 0 is 0

This is classic

>>720560587
it is 1 you fagro
7*0=0
0/0=1

>>720560587
We prove this is false by contradiction.

Let (14/0) * 0 = 14 and (7/0) * 0 = 7, as defined by the OP.

Now, because 0 = 0 +0 it follows that
(7/0)*(0+0) = 7

we apply the distributive property and get
(7/0)*0 + (7/0)*0 = 7
so it follows that
2((7/0)*0) = (14/0) * 0 = 7

This is a contradiction, and therefore OP is a faggot. QED.

File: Full Retard.jpg (17KB, 247x204px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 247x204px

>>720561403
>0/0=1

File: 1hSGL.jpg (95KB, 391x372px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 391x372px

>>720560587
Take your nigger mathematics away from here.

File: 7nPIzZg.jpg (22KB, 375x305px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 375x305px

>infinity * zero = seven

operations of the same type are read from left to right. Would be infinite

>>720560587
that would be an infinate amout of nothing.
so it would equal zero

File: 1469097272236.png (113KB, 600x602px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 600x602px

>>720560587
You can't divide by zero dumb fuck

1/10 bait

File: m.jpg (13KB, 696x401px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 696x401px

>>720560587
>pic related
>QED

>>720561448
if x/x = 1
then
0/0 = 1
But because 0 is a special snowflake whole mathematics is fucked

>>720561162
This.

>>720561543
It's not infinity because it's not a limit. Division by 0 is undefined.

And if we allow limits, this is perfectly possible. Let f(x) be (7x + 1) and let g(x) be 1/x. The limit as x approaches infinity for f(x) is infinity, and the limit as x approaches infinity of g(x) is 0. But the limit of (f*g)(x) as x approaches infinity is 7, so infinity * 0 is 7 (it this case).

>>720561420
good

>>720561763
Fuck you, I was on your side. I side with OP now.

>>720560587
I for one agree with OP
The division and multiplication negates each other out which essentially states:
7=7

File: 300px-Ballocaust.png (163KB, 300x299px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 300x299px

>>720560587

Undefined faggot you don't even math, that operation is like hey what do tampon French fries taste like THEY FUCKING DON'T FAGGOT IT'S UNDEFINED

>>720561683
Ayyyyyy

>>720562027
UNDEFINED
both operators have the same weight so it's impossible to tell which to apply first. Also PEMDAS, BIDMAS, ect... won't help as it's really P E MD AS and B I DM AS where they are grouped together by weight

>>720562776
I dont know about you or your PEMDAS/BIDMAS stuff but anything you multiple and then divide or otherway around always ends up the same.

>>720562870
Clearly not, because it's not true for 0. The proof is already in this thread, it leads to contradictions.

>>720562870
actually no, you're right, it's zero as division is clear in this. I'm so used to the other image being posted

File: 1382243080893.png (311KB, 640x1176px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 640x1176px

>>720561420
underrated post

File: 1457203672588.png (9KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 800x600px

>>720560587
provd

>>720563188
This. It's not defined. But, if we applied limits it would be equal 7. But we're not doing limits, so it's 0/0, undefined.

(7/0) . (0/1) = 0/0.

>>720561639
...But that dosen't even work if you replaced the sixes with any other number.

File: math.png (17KB, 1152x648px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 1152x648px

>>720560587
you would multiply the seven and 0 first. than divide 0 by 0. so its either 0 or one

>>720563942
who said you could do that?

>>720563942
good b8

if a whole is split into 0 parts, and you take 7 of those 0 parts. you have 7, zero sized parts. 7, 0 sized parts multiplied by 0 -> gives you 0, zero sized parts of a whole. the equation is equal to 0.

>>720564619
But you can't turn a whole into 0 parts.

>>720561683
x/x = 1 when x =/= 0, you fucking tard. It's not "zero being a special snowflake" it's basic mathematics.

>>720564743
by that same logic you cant use 0 in any equation at all. zero is nothing, but you can say 1 + 0.

>>720565000
That's not true. You can not take something, or take it 0 times. You can't turn something into 0 parts though. None of this matters anyway, because mathematics isn't concerned with silly analogies.

>>720565109
numbers are a division of a whole onto a single dimension number line, which is the basis of mathematics. its not an analogy. The basic principal exists with an infinite division of the whole into an infinite and negative infinite array of numbers. which includes a division of zero in the middle.

>>720565471
Division in a field is multiplication by the multiplicative inverse. 0 has no multiplicative inverse because for all x in the field 0 * x ≠ 1. Here 0 and 1 are the additive and multiplicative identity, respectively.

>>720560587
Undefined.

>>720560587
it would work if you used limits and replaced 0 with a variable

>lim a -> 0 ( a * 7/a)

>>720561162
>>720561763
>>720562644
>>720562776
>>720563307
>>720565716

4chan's brightest minds.

>>720565611
that is a rule calculators must follow due to linear processing and lack of abstract programming to truly define zero. logically, zero exists as an empty division of a whole. just like 1 would be a single division of some whole.

>>720566111
No, it's the actual definition of division. Just like subtraction is defined by addition by the additive inverse.

My answer is an absolute number of fucks given equaling zero

>>720566184
that's just dumb. have you ever seen the dictionary define the word no as "not yes"

On a more serious note:
You can define a division by zero, if you manage it to not contradict with any other law of math.

Something similar is managed by defining the square root of -1.

>>720561420
nice paper

>>720560587
teoretically 7/0 should give ∞, which then multiplied by 0 should give 0

>>720566398
For example you would need to give up wanting the real numbers to be a field (is that the right word, i dont know english math)

>>720566468
infinity times 0 is not defined

>>720566398
exactly, the abstraction of adding an imaginary number line to a single dimensional number line allows this. just the the abstraction of defining zero as zero parts of a whole

>>720566499 infinity is not a number you can make calculations with at all
>>720566468 7/0=error not infinity

>>720566499
>teoretically

>>720566686
>teoretically

>>720561137
Kek

>>720566686
wrong again, you can't use it for calculations, as it'll just absorb, undefine or indeterminate everything else. you can get it as a result though, from divergent series, divergent integrals, limits, etc

>>720566686
>7/0=error
lol

>>720560587

Eleminating the zeros gives you 7 times 7 left in that calculation. And 7 times 7 is 47, so you are all wrong.

>>720560842
>anything [...] multiplied by zero cant be defined
Hey wats 7×0?

File: 9acb79c0-c1ac-0132-4596-0ebc4eccb42f.gif (978KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 500x375px

Why can't Christians define Christianism?

>>720560587
>inb4 not understanding limits

>>720566498
Yes, field is the English term.

>>720566726
Not even "theoretically" in the sense of a limit because the limit of 7/x as x goes to infinity does not exist.

>>720560587
0 = 0/1
(7*0)/(0*1) = 0/0
0/0 != 7

>>720569693
as x goes to 0*

>>720569733
this isnt how math works faget

Suppose division by zero is a valid operation.

Let;
$ a = b
Thus;
$ a^2 = ab
Subtracting b^2 from each side;
$ a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
Thus;
$ (a - b)(a+b) = b(a-b)
Note that if a=b, a-b=0
Dividing through by a-b (zero), we obtain;
$ a + b = b

>CONTRADICTION 1
Let a = b equal a non-zero integer n
$ n + n = n
Thus;
$ 2n = n
Subtracting n from each side;
$ n = 0
But having let n be a non-zero integer, we immediately arrive at a contradiction, proving that our initial assumption of division by zero being a valid operation to be FALSE.

>CONTRADICTION 2 & 3
Letting n be a non-negative positive integer;
$ 2n = n
Thus;
$ n = n / 2 < n by postive Euclidean division

However, this immediately implies that both; n is not equal to itself, and that there exists no least positive integer which is a direct contradiction to the Well Ordering Principle.

>CONTRADICTION 4
Letting a = b = 1
$ 1 + 1 = 1

This is a direct contradiction to the proof presented in Principia Mathematica that develops proof through well over several hundred pages that 1 + 1 = 2. Since that proof requires only the assumption that different numbers are unique and distinct from one another (a purely philosophical question), it is mathematically airproof. Thus wholly, formally, and undeniably BTFOing OP's silly thread.

>>720560587
it's 0 not 7 faggot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
autism is off the scale with this OP

File: 1462244578229.gif (358KB, 300x169px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 300x169px

>>720560842
>Divisible by zero

>>720568210
literally the term "undefinded" ... zero is technically a number

>>720560587
7 / 0 by itself is undefined but in this case because of the extra * 0
7 / 0 = infinity (essentially)
and
infinity * 0 = indeterminate form

>>720560587
Math is illogic itself

Op is right. stop being edgy and trying to be Einsteins fags

EVERYBODY STFU
THIS IS NOW A SPIDERMAN THREAD
>inb4 no pic
I'm on my phone