1/0=infinity Prove me wrong.

infinity=1/0=1/(-0)=-1/0=-infinity

>>9110800
1/0 = every number simultaneously

>>9110800
The proof is trivial.

Assuming the axiom of infinity, the following holds trivially.
[math]\epsilon_0= \kappa^{\lambda^\infty}0 = 0 \iff 1 / 0 = \infty [/math]

Using the universal property of [math]\epsilon_0[/math] we trivially obtain
[math]\forall n, \, 0 \cong \pi_{n + \lambda}(S^n) \, /\ \mathbb{Q}^\infty \otimes (\mathbb{Z}^\infty * \mathbb{Z}^\infty)[/math] which is a contradiction.
[math]\blacksquare[/math]

>>9110829
Exactly, that's why we say it's undefined.
6/2=3, because 3*2=6
10/5=2, because 5*2=10
1/0=0, because 0*0=0
1/0=1, because 0*1=0
1/0=2, because 0*2=0
1/0=3, because 0*3=0
etc.

>>9110800
>1/0 = x
>(1/0)*0 = x*0
>1 = 0*x
>1 = 0

>>9110800
math is a tool created by man. You can't divide by zero in the same way you can't measure the weight of something with a tape measurer.

>>9111597
What if you hung the weight off the end of the tape and measured how far it got pulled out against the rewind spring

>>9110800
infinity is not a number,but a concept.
dont make sense

>>9110827
/thread

>>9110800
Uzumaki was a pretty good.

>>9110827
what is negative zero outside computing?

>>9110829
sounds like infinity to me

>>9111643
>infinity is not a number,but a concept.
>numbers are not concepts
pray tell, what might they be?

1/0 = infinity
infinity * 0 = 0
1 != 0

>>9111864
>1 != 0
Prove it.

>>9110800
If you multiply 0 by infinity you don't get 1, as simple as that.

>>9111857
>what might they be?
Depends on what formalism you are using.
An operation called "division" being defined on "infinity" is non-standard. Specify exactly what you mean by "infinity".

>>9111876
>multiply 0 by infinity
How does one "multiply by infinity"? Sounds like unrigorous gibberish to me.

>>9110829
Wrong.

>>9110844
You got that backwards.

6/2 = 3 because 3*2 =6
10/5 = 2 because 2*5 = 10
but
1/0 = ??? (no answer), undefined because there is no number that you can multiply by 0 to get 1.
But
0/0 = ??? (anything), undefined because it can be literally any number n * 0 = 0

tl;dr 0/0 and 1/0 are both undefined but for entirely different reasons

File: D E V I L I S H.jpg (78KB, 470x595px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 470x595px

>>9110831
>used trivial in every sentence before every result

>>9110800
infinity isn't a quantity you fucking dolt

File: 1463348326861.png (927KB, 638x718px) Image search: [Google]

927KB, 638x718px

>>9111616
>t. engineer

>>9111616

This wouldn't work. Any weight that was strong enough to pull out the tape at all would pull out all of the tape. (Given room.)

File: 2equals1[1].png (6KB, 252x197px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 252x197px

>>9110800
if it was,
<-- pic would be true.

>>9110844
1/0 = 2
1 = 2*0
opposite from what you said, not every number, not a single number satisfies 1/0 = x

>>9112968

where exactly is the error in this again?

>>9112974
between the 4th and 5th line where (a - b) is removed.
You divide both sides by (a - b), which is not allowed, since a - b = 0
If division by 0 was infinity this would be a legit operation

abs(x/y) is defined if and only if x OR y is non-zero.
sign(x/y) is defined if and only if x AND y are non-zero.

>>9111872
literally an axiom

>>9111864
>[math]\infty\cdot 0=0[/math]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sphere
You're not wrong.

>>9113088
Only in some very crippled system.

>>9110800
This is a misunderstanding of the division operator.

While you may have been taught in grade school that you can visualize division by literally dividing a quantity into parts, this is not how we define division.

a/b=c means c is a number, which when multiplied by b equals a. This is the only meaningful definition of divison, and inherently rules out infinity as an answer

>>9110800
Those who better understand mathematical statements correct me on this, but I'm pretty sure 1/0 is undefined because the limit of 1/x as x approaches 0 is -infinity when approaching -0 and +infinity when approaching +0, which contradicts itself because -infinity=/=+infinity, meaning that 1/0, in the form of a the limit x->0 1/x is undefined

>>9110829
This is equally wrong.

>>9110844
Holy shit you stupid fuck a/b=c so b*c=a so
1/0=0 would mean 0*0=1 it's no numbers not every number

>>9110827
> 1/x = 1/-x

1/0 = inf/1
0/1 = 1/inf

>>9110800
An infinite number of zeroes would still sum to zero.
0+0 = 0 ALWAYS

>>9113932
That really depends on the infinity.

>>9110800
>put nothing into a box
>how long until the box is full

>>9113701
>"-infinity=/=+infinity"
Pop-sci garbage.

>>9112946
But isn't the internal mechanism of a tape measure based upon a spring/coil? Wouldn't the resistance become stronger as it tightens due to the weight?

>>9112050
The proof is indeed trivial.

>>9110827
Infinity = -infinity

>>9115955
Except it doesn't, because n^x and n^-x approach very different values when x approaches infinite.

>>9115955
do you want -infinity money?
you will be rich ;)

>>9110800
>>9110827
what if I use an extension of the real number system such that it is [math]\mathbb{R} \cup \{\infty\} [/math]
constructed with the analytic extension such that any divergent series tends to [math]\infty[/math]?

The visual would be a circle with infinite radius representing an extension of the reals.
now that I have concocted this bullshit extension, OP is suddenly right.

t. algebraic analyst

File: comp.png (61KB, 900x682px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 900x682px

>>9116084
this got me thinking about some universal property for one-point compactification and I ended up at the nlab page for "compactum space". I kekked a bit

File: wildsperger.jpg (14KB, 355x238px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 355x238px

>>9110827
>infinity=-infinity
nothing wong with that
lrn2projectivegeometry, plens

>>9110829
That's 0/0
>>9110800
Prove yourself right

>>9110800
1/0 = 1

>>9116116
>complicating basic point-set topology with tumorous category theory
It's like I'm watching Haskellfags in /g/ try to write fizzbuzz using hundreds of lines of boilerplate.

>>9111881
I think he meant that multiplaying any number (so in the range of infinity?) With 0 will not result in an answer of 1

>>9114546
stop using hookes law

>>9110800
Infinity can be positive or negative and since zero is neither we don't know which one it is chromate atheists

File: young-ocelot-1024x576.jpg (56KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1024x576px

>>9111616
You're pretty good.

>>9116084
>algebraic analyst
So in other words a subhuman?

>>9116084
>an extension of the real number system
That would first require the real number system to actually exist.

>>9116250
>/g/
Subhuman engineer spotted.

>>9110800
1/0 = 1, because 0 means nothing, nothing is being used