How come you can't divide by 0? That doesn't make any sense

1/0
Someone give me a nobel peace prize

>>9160223
Last time we draw a line to see the result, it went all the way down.

Then it came from all the way up and continued its path as if nothing had happened.

Does that make any sense to you?

you can in wheels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory

>>9160229
stop snorting semen you idiot

>>9160233
real applications = 0

>>9160256
>real applications = 0
and?

>>9160223

1/0.1 = 10
1/0.01 = 100
1/0.00..1 = 100...0

so 1/0 = infinity?

but 1/-0.1 = -10
1/-0.01 = -100
1/-0.00..1 = -100...0

so 1/0 = -infinity?

they don't agree, so regardless of the fact it shoots off to an infinitely large number, it doesn't do so the same way from both directions. so it's certainly not well defined

>>9160223
Write it a different way:
X = Y/0
0*X = Y
OP please tell me a nonzero value of X that would give you a nonzero value of Y. Doesn't work, does it?

>>9160223
because 0 isn't a number

>>9160256
Do you mean... wheel applications?

>>9160223
It doesn't, OP, I've never gotten the example people always use with the apples.

If I were to divide ten apples by two, I'd separate the apples into two sets of equal size, or five apples per set. Now, if I were to divide ten apples by zero, I'd separate the apples into zero sets of equal size, or zero apples per set. Thus, n/0 for any real number n always equals zero.

Brainlets and jews don't want you to know this and keep on about symplectic geometry and K-theory to keep our race in the dark.

>>9160281
go back to calc 1 retardos

>>9160325
Are you brain damaged? You cannot separate any amount of things into zero sets. The smallest amount of sets you can use to organize N items is 1 set with N items in the set. Organizing N items into 0 sets is a nonsense scenario and if you weren't dropped on your head 20 times it wouldn't be that hard for you to understand.

>>9160325
>into two sets of equal size, or five apples per set.
2x5 = 10
Okay, the 10 apples were diveded equally, but they are still there; carry on.

>into zero sets of equal size, or zero apples per set.
0x0 = 0

hmm, perhaps it is the wrong number?
0x1 = 0
0x2 = 0
...
0xn = 0 for any real number n

Where are the 10 apples? They disappeared!

>>9160223
Wouldn't every number that gets divided by zero just create infinity

There's no good way to define it. It conflicts with a bunch of stuff we want because it's convenient, like that if a = b and b = c then a = c.

>>9160223
You're a fucking boring nerd, get a life and gf you fucking faggot

>>9160223
Because it is literally the first thing you do. You 'form the question'.

0 is the same as saying infinity. You divide from infinity (because you CANNOT divide from a singularity; that's the definition) in order to abstract a value/result.

However why would you always write: 0/MATH_MATH_MATH

If it helps think of: 0 = 1 - 1 = 0

You always need, for EVERY EQUATION, a convention that all maths shares. That is infinity.

In English plain: Dividing by zero is the equivalent of saying either 'go ask the dude that asked this question if you want the answer' OR 'the dude that formed the question decided to suck a shotgun shell'.

>>9160521
By that logic, multiplying by zero is also a nonsense scenario. Check and mate, Shlomo.

>>9160661
Precisely. Multiplication by zero implies you have created a set with no values in it. This is the exact same as division by zero, which is creating no sets with arbitrary values within it.

>>9160223

If I have five friends and one birthday cake, then I don't divide the cake into pieces, how many cakes do I have?

>>9160223
if you can multiply by 0 you should definitely be able to divide by 0
consider the following example 5X0=0
let's divide both sides by 0
(5X0)/0 = 0/0
0/0 is obviously 1

>>9160297
Gyes I tink its A GOOD

>>9160451
t. calc II student

>>9160799
Holy shit guys.
A/0 = B
A = B*0
So let's say A is 5. According to you, A/0 is 0. So 0*0 is 5! And oh my stars, 0*0 = A no matter what we choose for A! Every real number equals 0*0!
You absolute moron.

>>9160817
Literally 0/0 is the only case where you can possibly reason this way. The definition of division is such that the result multiplied by the denominator needs to equal the numerator, ffs. 1/0 only makes sense if you can find me a number that gives you 1 when multiplied by zero.

You'd be dividing something by nothing, which is impossible

>>9160223
1/4= 0.25
1/2= 0.5
1/1= 1

1/0 = infinity

Well, you could work in the Riemann sphere. Let's see how this would work:

Pros:
0 has a multiplicative inverse
Cons:
-Parallel postulate ceases to be true
-Distance function now contains error term
-Cannot be covered in a single coordinate chart
-You need to use a Levi-Civita connection instead of an ordinary derivative

But it's more important to have "freshman's dream" theorems, right guys?

(P.S., I am aware you can give the Riemann sphere an almost everywhere flat metric, but then have fun with your singular point(s))

>>9160997
1/-1 = More infinity

>>9161018
forgot to mention that x=0 of course follows from the previous calculation
x=2x gives (subtract x from both sides) 0=x

If you divide by 0, you'd reach two answers: positive and negative infinity. Math seems intent on a single answer, so it's undefined.

>>9160223
1/0=x
0*x=1
There is no real number that would give an asnwer here

>>9161110
why not define a number, like with the imaginary unit?

>>9161145
Ok, sure. Do it. Let's call that number Z. Cool, A/0 = Z for all numbers A. Anything interesting that we can say about Z? Well, let's try Z*Z. Hmm, look like Z*Z = Z. That's not interesting. How about Z+Z? Still Z. Well, what happens when we multiply Z by zero? That just gives back A which could be any number, so it's undefined. Damn, what a boring number. Whose idea was this?

>>9161268
That's not how it'd work, you retard. A/0 = 1A/0 = A * 1/0. Z would equal 1/0, not any A over 0. It'd be a unit, So A/0 = AZ for all A.

Z*Z = Z
Z + Z = 2/0 = 2Z.
0*Z = (0 * 1)/0 = 0/0 = 0Z = 0

>>9160256
It's useful when handling the Riemann sphere which has a multitude of applications.

>>9161410
> calls me a retard
> continues to take this line of reasoning seriously
Oh dear, how oh so smart you are for thinking of the oh so obvious thing! Of course Z should be a unit! It was so clear I must be retarded for missing it!
So keep going then. Il hold out for at least one interesting property of this spectacular new area of mathematics you just invented before I conclusively decide that your brain is an actual walnut.

>>9161490
>does math shittily
>t-this obviously wasn't serious, i was only p-pretending to be retarded!
lmao are you autistic? you remind me of chris-chan

>>9161519
chris-chan is a god among men m8

>>9160229
What the hell are you on about

>>9160829
so then you should understand limits brainiac

>>9160668
What's the lim of 1/n as n approaches both infinities buddy

>>9160223
Riemann sphere.

Isn't zero just a placeholder for notation? It has no value so you can't actually manipulate it like a number.

File: 1503931831755.jpg (46KB, 590x536px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 590x536px

>>9160223
>entirety of /sci/ cannot answer simplest mathematical question
just give it up lads. You are even dumber than /pol/

>>9161410
> "why don't we define a number that equals 1 when multiplied by zero"
> 0Z = 0

>>9160687
Great post

It never happens in nature

If it does happen, it is a special number... Basically it is the whole equation with everything that caused it, and the only way to turn it back into a real number is to multiply it by the same term that is the zero on the bottom, arising from the same variables and source

Otherwise it is indeterminate and is actually equal to every possible number at the same time

1/0=k
1=0*k
1=0
Congrats

>>9162720
It must be the same zero and you get k not 0 if you multiply by 0_0 and the 0_0 on top and 0_0 on the bottom cancel out to give 1, not the way you placed it

>>9162750
Rather k is already this special number and you need to know what's inside k inside the equation to get a real result

>>9162752
Also the same thing applies to infinities

Ie infinities with subscripts that are cancelled out by dividing because they arise from the same source

>>9162909
Eg it happens like

dx = 0_0
a = (0_0/|0_0|) G M / 0_0^2
x2 = 0_1 + a t^2
dx2 = 0_2 - x_2
a2 = (dx2/|dx2|) G M / dx2^2

We don't know "a" but it has the special property that

a 0_0^2 = (0_0/|0_0|) G M

>>9160233
Yo, that's pretty cool. It sucks that with this definition the distributive properties get altered and 0x isn't 0, but all in all, an interesting structure. Thanks for sharing!

Because you can add 0 to itself an infinite number of times and you'll always get 0

>>9160223
Nobody can just explain it can they.

Division is splitting something in equal parts

a = b/c

a = the answer
b = how much of the object
c = how many equal parts to split it into

So 6/2 = 3

You are splitting 6 into 2 equal halves, therefore each halve has a value of 3.

But 6/0 = ?
You cannot split 6 into 0 parts, because then the parts added back together would not equal 6, because there are no parts. The answer "a" is what is the value of each part? There is no value.

Dividing by 0 is impossible in traditional use of the word "division" but it is possible in other concerns and the value depends on the concern.

If you disagree/don't understand that you need to read more books to nurture your brain. Or just give up.

Cut an apple in half, then cut the halves in half, etc

Would you ever run out of apple?

Try dividing a sandwich into 2 parts. Now try dividing it into 0 parts. Which is easier?

>>9161733
y=x^(-1) at 0
>Not understanding high school math

>>9160223
Concretely, cero is the equivalent of nothing. You can't divide an object into nothing parts.

>>9160223
>How come you can't divide by 0?

You can, it's just a meaningless answer because you aren't technically dividing anything by anything.

>>9161607
>men

>>9165012
>>9165361
"dividing into x" is different from "dividing by x" you stupid retards.

File: 1504811485687.png (42KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x620px

>>9160284
x =/= y/0

>>9160804
1

we say that [math]n[/math] is divisible by [math]m[/math] if there exists an integer [math]k[/math] such that [math]n = mk[/math]. any [math]n \neq 0[/math] is not divisible by [math]0[/math], because there is no [math]k[/math] such that [math]n = 0k[/math]. on the other hand, [math]0[/math] is divisible by [math]0[/math] because for any real [math]k[/math] the equality [math]0 = 0k[/math] holds. that's the whole story (from the traditional viewpoint), no black magic going on here.

>>9168228
>no black magic going on here.
Why did you have to say that.