Topic: How to divide by zero (Read 6148 times)
OP has never heard of Calpanic Numbers: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.2798v1.pdf
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
WTF AM I READING, guys?
√1- = i
2/0 = 2PLACEMENTHOLDER
.. why not..?
2/0 = 2PLACEMENTHOLDER
.. why not..?
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
what do you mean? why did you post something like this anyway?
i thought i am going to learn how to divide using zero but the answer is still zero
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneous_coordinates
In homogeneous coordinates when Z is 0, the point is at infinity. However the point (0, 0, 0) is undefined!
In homogeneous coordinates when Z is 0, the point is at infinity. However the point (0, 0, 0) is undefined!
Quote
Note that the triple (0, 0, 0) is omitted and does not represent any point.
I can barely process trigonometry. This is worse than trying to read ancient Vulcan scrolls.
What happens is that, as one moves "upwards or downwards through the levels of" (Weisenstein) arithmetic's number line, one "arives where one started," hyperzero [1/0] - which is equivalent to zero (except, at a different location).
I cannot process this sorcery.
Quote from: Weisstein, Eric W.
A strange loop is a phenomenon in which, whenever movement is made upwards or downwards through the levels of some hierarchical system, the system unexpectedly arrives back where it started.
Look over this article on the "strange loop."
I cannot process this sorcery.
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Unless you think in literal terms;
Numerator = number of whatever
Denominator = number of groups that numerator goes into
0/1
Possible; you can put nothing in a group.
1/0
Impossible, you cannot put something into nothing
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
With that same logic - any number, when divided by itself produces 1.
x / x = 1
so when x is 0, 0 / 0 = 1. Uh-oh paradox...
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
With that same logic - any number, when divided by itself produces 1.
x / x = 1
so when x is 0, 0 / 0 = 1. Uh-oh paradox...
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Did you fail middle school or something?
Dayum, that's too complex for me 
dividing by 0 will always give a mathematics error. infinity. btw its has few if any applications.
there are no applications because it's not possible.This is one incredible thread, i tell ya ...
It is done every day. Taken for example PHP programming, if variable in divisor is undef or zero. Spills out Zero always, which is kinda strange if you compare with what you learned at school.
Theory and practice I say.
The world we live in is a complex world with questions more than answers. Dividing by zero simply means that you have divided something into infinite small parts, consequently giving infinite parts.
Use Rotaluclac to divide everything by zero, -1 and so on.
(Its the new Calculator
)
(Its the new Calculator
) 
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
The answer is undefined, or infinity. 1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
In the case of the United States, even 50 is turning into zero more and more.
Another logical conclusion would be, that zero is not a number, but a lack of one. It's a state.
If a person divides something by zero, why does he suddenly focus on the zero rather than what he was attempting to divide? Is it because it was the last part of the operation, and because it didn't work, he will always be stuck there?
This message was too old and has been purged
its fairly easy to divide by 0.
1/0 = ~
Senario. 1 bag of sand divide it by 0. throw it all around. = 1/0
1/0 = ~
Senario. 1 bag of sand divide it by 0. throw it all around. = 1/0
Code:
( ∀𝑥 𝑥 ∈ *ℝ ) ⇒ ( *𝑥 = ⅟₀ − 𝑥 )
A population can be divided into equally populous subpopulations ad infinitum (i.e., to an absolute infinity [i.e., an superlatively large hyperreal number]) when so dividing both zero times (i.e., not doing so) and into “subpopulations” of zero (i.e., unpopulated “subpopulations”).
Looking at what the Mexican cartels and ISIS are doing these days, the population can be divided into all the people except that one of them has lost his head... a fractional population.
I got an easy one for you...
If you're driving in a canoe and the wheels fall off, how many pieces of pizza can you eat?
If you're driving in a canoe and the wheels fall off, how many pieces of pizza can you eat?
Quantum math could answer this. But the answer would be as goofy as any other non-reality.
Ask Chuck Norris.
He is the only only that can do that
He is the only only that can do that
its fairly easy to divide by 0.
1/0 = ~
Senario. 1 bag of sand divide it by 0. throw it all around. = 1/0
1/0 = ~
Senario. 1 bag of sand divide it by 0. throw it all around. = 1/0
Guys, the solution to this can be summed by Plato's third man argument.
The solution fits in neither undefined nor zero, but the interdeterminate form
The solution fits in neither undefined nor zero, but the interdeterminate form
Division and multiplication are different.
The more you know.
The more you know.
What number times 0 will give you something?
Similarly, we know that, 0^0 = 1
Nope, that is not correct.
That is indeterminate as well.
dividing by 0 will always give a mathematics error. infinity. btw its has few if any applications.
there are no applications because it's not possible.
This is one incredible thread, i tell ya ...
it's like human beings have two hands, two legs and one penis.
dividing by 0 will always give a mathematics error. infinity. btw its has few if any applications.
zero is no real number to begin with. It doesn't occure in the real world.
I strongly disagree.
10/10 = 1
5/5 = 1
So, naturally 0/0 = 1
Another proof:
10^2 = 10 * 10
10^1 = 10
10^0 = 10/10 = 1
Similarly, we know that, 0^0 = 1, which is 0/0 = 1
Prove me wrong.
10/10 = 1
5/5 = 1
So, naturally 0/0 = 1
Another proof:
10^2 = 10 * 10
10^1 = 10
10^0 = 10/10 = 1
Similarly, we know that, 0^0 = 1, which is 0/0 = 1
Prove me wrong.
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Lets say you have cero apples... and you want to give that apples to 3 persons... how many apples will get each person? cero.
that is why 0/3=0
Now you're mixing flawed math with flawed English.
I see less equations and more faulty logic.
How about you leave the math to people who have studied it and you can go back to the fairy tales?
God is all. God is the universe. God is oneness. God is light. God is love. God is consciousness.
God is positivity.
Ego is none. Ego is fear. Ego is death. Ego is doubt. Ego is random.
Ego is negativity.
God believes in everything. Ego believes in nothing.
Everything is everything.
Nothing is nothing.
Everything = ∞
Nothing = 0
Multiply any form of logic times zero, what do you get?
God is positivity.
Ego is none. Ego is fear. Ego is death. Ego is doubt. Ego is random.
Ego is negativity.
God believes in everything. Ego believes in nothing.
Everything is everything.
Nothing is nothing.
Everything = ∞
Nothing = 0
Multiply any form of logic times zero, what do you get?
Code:
Arithmatic negation is the arithmatic equivalent of logical negation.
Zero ("0") is quantitative nothing.
∴ Negative (read: negated) zero ("−0") is quantitative everything.
I don't have time to prove the obvious using math. It is right there, out in the open, for anyone who wants to look at it.
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Lets say you have cero apples... and you want to give that apples to 3 persons... how many apples will get each person? cero.
that is why 0/3=0
Now you're mixing flawed math with flawed English.
I see less equations and more faulty logic.
How about you leave the math to people who have studied it and you can go back to the fairy tales?
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Lets say you have cero apples... and you want to give that apples to 3 persons... how many apples will get each person? cero.
that is why 0/3=0
Now you're mixing flawed math with flawed English.
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Lets say you have zero apples... and you want to give that apples to 3 persons... how many apples will get each person? cero.
that is why 0/3=0
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Premise 1 is false, it presupposes you can divide by zero, this operation is undefined. The division algorithm states
a=bq + r, where b|a (b divides a), The set of R/0 is not closed under division, or the multiplication inverse.
R/0 is an indeterminate form. It is undefined. A limiting process can be applied to an indeterminate form, but remember the episilon-delta proof, the limit never actually gets to zero, only "as close as we like"
The whole process shoudl be restricted to integers anyway to eliminate irrational numbers in the real set.
Right! If you divide something by 0, that's the same as dividing it by nothing. If something isn't divided, the thing that is left is the original something, right? Therefore, 2/0=2.
Arithmatical division is both the taking and making of groups.
An arithmatical quotient is that number of groups made or taken as a result of that division.
∴ That arithmatical quotient of arithmatical division by zero (id est, that number of groups of, quantitatively, nothing one can take/make from any something) is absolute (indeed, that exact opposite [logical not] of quantitative nothing, "−0").
Oh, play the mathematical BS. This is the exact reason stuff is so confounded.
Take 10 Arabs in the desert. Divide their number by 2 and you get 2 groups of 5, right. Since "0" is nothing, divide them by nothing and they are not divide, right? So, there are still 10 Arabs, right?
English has its characteristic laws that don't make any sense. Mathematics is a language that has characteristic laws that don't make any sense as well. It's the reason that we have flaws in our thinking.
Look, -0 is absence of zero. So, what exactly is the amount of non-zero?
Wasn't a question. Was English. Non-zero is the set of whatever we were talking about = 10 Arabs.
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Premise 1 is false, it presupposes you can divide by zero, this operation is undefined. The division algorithm states
a=bq + r, where b|a (b divides a), The set of R/0 is not closed under division, or the multiplication inverse.
R/0 is an indeterminate form. It is undefined. A limiting process can be applied to an indeterminate form, but remember the episilon-delta proof, the limit never actually gets to zero, only "as close as we like"
The whole process shoudl be restricted to integers anyway to eliminate irrational numbers in the real set.
Right! If you divide something by 0, that's the same as dividing it by nothing. If something isn't divided, the thing that is left is the original something, right? Therefore, 2/0=2.
Arithmatical division is both the taking and making of groups.
An arithmatical quotient is that number of groups made or taken.
∴ That number of groups of nothing one can take and make from any something is absolute - indeed, that exact opposite of nothing, "−0."
Oh, play the mathematical BS. This is the exact reason stuff is so confounded.
Take 10 Arabs in the desert. Divide their number by 2 and you get 2 groups of 5, right. Since "0" is nothing, divide them by nothing and they are not divide, right? So, there are still 10 Arabs, right?
English has its characteristic laws that don't make any sense. Mathematics is a language that has characteristic laws that don't make any sense as well. It's the reason that we have flaws in our thinking.
Look, -0 is absence of zero. So, what exactly is the amount of non-zero?
I got an easy one for you...
If you're driving in a canoe and the wheels fall off, how many pieces of pizza can you eat?
If you're driving in a canoe and the wheels fall off, how many pieces of pizza can you eat?
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Premise 1 is false, it presupposes you can divide by zero, this operation is undefined. The division algorithm states
a=bq + r, where b|a (b divides a), The set of R/0 is not closed under division, or the multiplication inverse.
R/0 is an indeterminate form. It is undefined. A limiting process can be applied to an indeterminate form, but remember the episilon-delta proof, the limit never actually gets to zero, only "as close as we like"
The whole process shoudl be restricted to integers anyway to eliminate irrational numbers in the real set.
Right! If you divide something by 0, that's the same as dividing it by nothing. If something isn't divided, the thing that is left is the original something, right? Therefore, 2/0=2.
Arithmatical division is both the taking and making of groups.
An arithmatical quotient is that number of groups made or taken.
∴ That number of groups of nothing one can take and make from any something is absolute - indeed, that exact opposite of nothing, "−0."
Oh, play the mathematical BS. This is the exact reason stuff is so confounded.
Take 10 Arabs in the desert. Divide their number by 2 and you get 2 groups of 5, right. Since "0" is nothing, divide them by nothing and they are not divided, right? So, there are still 10 Arabs, right?
English has its characteristic laws that don't make any sense. Mathematics is a language that has characteristic laws that don't make any sense as well. It's the reason that we have flaws in our thinking.
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Premise 1 is false, it presupposes you can divide by zero, this operation is undefined. The division algorithm states
a=bq + r, where b|a (b divides a), The set of R/0 is not closed under division, or the multiplication inverse.
R/0 is an indeterminate form. It is undefined. A limiting process can be applied to an indeterminate form, but remember the episilon-delta proof, the limit never actually gets to zero, only "as close as we like"
The whole process shoudl be restricted to integers anyway to eliminate irrational numbers in the real set.
Right! If you divide something by 0, that's the same as dividing it by nothing. If something isn't divided, the thing that is left is the original something, right? Therefore, 2/0=2.
For those who still don't understand:
Lets say 1/1 = 1. Eeasy right?
Now try to follow the next calculations:
1/0.1 = 10
1/0.01 = 100
1/0.001 = 1000
1/0.0001 = 1000
And so on.
The smaller the number you divide by, the larger the outcome is.
Example: 1/0.000000000000000000001 = 1000000000000000000000
So when you divide by a number which is a million times smaller then the previous one, your outcome will be a million times larger.
The closer you get to 'divide by zero', the larger the outcome is. You can keep doing this for infinite time, but you'll never reach zero before all energy in this universe is used.
Oh, "negative" should be thought of as "logical not" as in the following emboldened:Lets say 1/1 = 1. Eeasy right?
Now try to follow the next calculations:
1/0.1 = 10
1/0.01 = 100
1/0.001 = 1000
1/0.0001 = 1000
And so on.
The smaller the number you divide by, the larger the outcome is.
Example: 1/0.000000000000000000001 = 1000000000000000000000
So when you divide by a number which is a million times smaller then the previous one, your outcome will be a million times larger.
The closer you get to 'divide by zero', the larger the outcome is. You can keep doing this for infinite time, but you'll never reach zero before all energy in this universe is used.
The part about this that bugs me is that multiplication and division by everything except zero is also a scalar - repeated process of addition or subtraction respectively modifying the magnitude of the function respectively - but 2-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 is still 2. DERP!
Shout outs to indeterminate and epsilon-delta def.
Introducing two into itself no times leaves one with nothing. Removing two from itself no times so leaves one with [that logical not of] nothing.Shout outs to indeterminate and epsilon-delta def.
if you divide 0 by zero and get the correct answer the universe will implode... no one has got it yet thats why were still here
x ÷ 0 = −0A less confusing notation would be the !
For those who still don't understand:
Lets say 1/1 = 1. Eeasy right?
Now try to follow the next calculations:
1/0.1 = 10
1/0.01 = 100
1/0.001 = 1000
1/0.0001 = 1000
And so on.
The smaller the number you divide by, the larger the outcome is.
Example: 1/0.000000000000000000001 = 1000000000000000000000
So when you divide by a number which is a million times smaller then the previous one, your outcome will be a million times larger.
The closer you get to 'divide by zero', the larger the outcome is. You can keep doing this for infinite time, but you'll never reach zero before all energy in this universe is used.
Lets say 1/1 = 1. Eeasy right?
Now try to follow the next calculations:
1/0.1 = 10
1/0.01 = 100
1/0.001 = 1000
1/0.0001 = 1000
And so on.
The smaller the number you divide by, the larger the outcome is.
Example: 1/0.000000000000000000001 = 1000000000000000000000
So when you divide by a number which is a million times smaller then the previous one, your outcome will be a million times larger.
The closer you get to 'divide by zero', the larger the outcome is. You can keep doing this for infinite time, but you'll never reach zero before all energy in this universe is used.
The part about this that bugs me is that multiplication and division by everything except zero is also a scalar - repeated process of addition or subtraction respectively modifying the magnitude of the function respectively - but 2-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 is still 2. DERP!
Shout outs to indeterminate and epsilon-delta def.
Shout outs to indeterminate and epsilon-delta def.
if you divide 0 by zero and get the correct answer the universe will implode... no one has got it yet thats why were still here
Right! That's the Big Crunch and when multipling by zero it explodes, as in The Big Bang. That's why we all agreed the answer was zero. Did I miss a memo? I always hate living in reverse time...
if you divide 0 by zero and get the correct answer the universe will implode... no one has got it yet thats why were still here
Everyone knows well enough not to feed the trolls, but nooooooOOOOOooooooooo, you just HAAaad to do it. You just had to teach dank about indeterminate forms.
Great, now dank (and pretty soon every other godbot) thinks they've got a new god toy. MATH!
Great, now dank (and pretty soon every other godbot) thinks they've got a new god toy. MATH!
Would you like to swap a sticker for those hipster points?
Everyone knows well enough not to feed the trolls, but nooooooOOOOOooooooooo, you just HAAaad to do it. You just had to teach dank about indeterminate forms.
Great, now dank (and pretty soon every other godbot) thinks they've got a new god toy. MATH!
Great, now dank (and pretty soon every other godbot) thinks they've got a new god toy. MATH!
Thank you sir, you just made me aware of mathematical proof of god.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form#Indeterminate_form_0.2F0Whoo
Thank you for sharing!
This is covered in your first calculus course. Find a text, stewart, online.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form#Indeterminate_form_0.2F0Whoo
Thank you for sharing!
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form#Indeterminate_form_0.2F0good old sinx/x, used this for solid state energy band structures.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form#Indeterminate_form_0.2F0 Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Premise 1 is false, it presupposes you can divide by zero, this operation is undefined.
R/0 is an indeterminate form. It is undefined. A limiting process can be applied to an indeterminate form, but remember the episilon-delta proof, the limit never actually gets to zero, only "as close as we like"
I meant 0/x = 0
Can nothing be divided?
This is a different question, yes 0 can be divided.
By the division algorithm
a = bq+r, can this equation be made true for a=0? Of course
0=bq + r
0 = 0*0 +0
or
0 = -1*1 +1
or any other combination. If the algorithm can be satisfied any combination is divisible
[source]
http://www.fmf.uni-lj.si/~lavric/Rosen%20-%20Elementary%20number%20theory%20and%20its%20applications.pdf
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Premise 1 is false, it presupposes you can divide by zero, this operation is undefined.
R/0 is an indeterminate form. It is undefined. A limiting process can be applied to an indeterminate form, but remember the episilon-delta proof, the limit never actually gets to zero, only "as close as we like"
I meant 0/x = 0
Can nothing be divided?
Anything can be divided, that includes nothing.
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Premise 1 is false, it presupposes you can divide by zero, this operation is undefined.
R/0 is an indeterminate form. It is undefined. A limiting process can be applied to an indeterminate form, but remember the episilon-delta proof, the limit never actually gets to zero, only "as close as we like"
I meant 0/x = 0
Can nothing be divided?
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Premise 1 is false, it presupposes you can divide by zero, this operation is undefined.
R/0 is an indeterminate form. It is undefined. A limiting process can be applied to an indeterminate form, but remember the episilon-delta proof, the limit never actually gets to zero, only "as close as we like"
I meant 0/x = 0
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Premise 1 is false, it presupposes you can divide by zero, this operation is undefined. The division algorithm states
a=bq + r, where b|a (b divides a), The set of R/0 is not closed under division, or the multiplication inverse.
R/0 is an indeterminate form. It is undefined. A limiting process can be applied to an indeterminate form, but remember the episilon-delta proof, the limit never actually gets to zero, only "as close as we like"
The whole process shoudl be restricted to integers anyway to eliminate irrational numbers in the real set.
Consider these mathematical laws:
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
1) Any real number, when divided by zero, produces modulus and quotient zero.
Example: 0/2 = 0
2) Any real number multiplied by zero is equal to zero.
Therefore, it logically follows, that zero divided by zero is equal to zero.
Jump to: