Is 0 finite?

>>8918935
yes

>>8918937
h-how many is it?

anime retards always make the dumbest threads

I'm inclined to say it's a real infinitetesimal and that numbers can't be finite.

>>8919112
what do you mean/

It is the single most based number

If you add zero to a finite number is the result finite?

File: 1406851110078.png (34KB, 850x801px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 850x801px

Let [math] k \in \mathbb{N} [/math]. Then
[math] \frac{k}{0} = \infty , [/math]
[math] k = 0 . [/math]
Hence, [math] 0 = \infty [/math], because you can make zero arbitrary large. Zero is not finite.

>>8921044
Isn't this only true when approaching the limit. Can you actually define division by zero?

>>8921320
>Can you actually define division by zero?
It's math, anon. You can define whatever the fuck you want, who cares if it makes sense? That's how mathematicians have been operating for centuries.

you can't even get any more finite than zero

>>8921044
k/0 is only infinity for non-zero k. 0/0 can't be infinity, it's just 0/0

I have physics profs that use "finite" to mean "both non-zero and non-infinite". I have no idea why they do this.

I've always questioned me about the degree of the polynomial f(x) = 0. Normally you'd answer 0 w/o thinking twice. But that polynomial has infinite roots, and by FTA the degree of f(x) = 0 should be infinity no? Am I stating bullshit here?

>>8921478
a constant doesnt' have any roots u dummy

>>8919126
>numbers can't be finite
Shouldn't /sci/ know about Von Neuman cardinals?
0 := {} which is a finite set.

>>8921506
>Von Neuman cardinals
shiggy diggy

>>8921044
I can make 0/0 be 0, [math]\infty[/math] or any number.
Also, [math]\frac{k}{0}[/math] doesn't really make any sense, even for non zero [math]k[/math]. What you wanted to say was [math]\lim_{x \to 0} \frac{k}{x} \to \infty[/math].

In order to have a limit, you need a start. Therefore, no. For example, "OP doesn't have a finite amount of non-existent dicks in his mouth" doesn't really make sense but "OP doesn't have a lack of dicks in his mouth" does.

>>8921432
>You can define whatever the fuck you want, who cares if it makes sense
Your definition is INCONSISTENT. With your definition just lost a significant amount of properties of the real numbers.

Even including infinity in the real numbers means that addition and multiplication are not well defined (R is NOT a field anymore), which complete invalidates your second step.

>That's how mathematicians have been operating for centuries.
They have defining things to be CONSISTENT. Your definition completely breaks that consistency.

>>8921478
>Am I stating bullshit here?
Not really, the 0 polynomial has commonly the degree -infinity.

According to my calc professor, 0 is the single most important number in math, followed by 1, then e, then pi, the sqrt(2). Is he right?

>>8922684
no

>>8918935
It's infinitely finite.