Why is 1/0 so hard?
Isn't the answer 0?
If I have nothing, and i divided it into 10 pieces. Each piece is exactly nothing.
retard you just did 0/10 not 10/0
>>686787388
I know what you are saying.
But that doesn't make my last sentence incorrect?
Make it incorrect so I can feel comfortable today.
because 0 is more a concept then an actual number
Because computer dont logic in that way, but sometimes do maybe? 0=0
>>686787388
How do I have nothing, and still divide it into 10 piece in my imagination, then have any of those pieces be anything besides nothing?
>>686787147
>baiting this hard
Dude try a little subtlety
>>686787541
okay try this.
you have 10 pieces, divide into 0 groups.
does that mean you have 1 because they're all in the same (non) group? Or maybe is it 0 because to have 0 groups you have zero pieces
Mathematical operators are arbitrary. If they arbitrarily defined division by zero to always equal zero you'd still be making this fucking thread saying it doesn't make sense
>>686787774
Figure this one out and /b/ can lead the new new world order.
>>686787147
rule 37?
>>686787886
So I understand it as the limit of our math language?
Because logically its 0 groups, 10 pieces.
Isn't that 2 levels of stuff? Requiring 2 diff set of symbols (math, english) to represent?
>>686787147
You describe 0 / 10
>>686787147
1/1 = 1
1/0.1 = 10
1/0.001 = 100
1/0.0001 = 1000
.
.
.
1/0 = INFINITY
>>686787147
0 goes in to 1 an infinite amount of times and the answer is called complex infinity
>>686787147
10 / 0
would be infinite right ? not zero
>>686788456
I believe complex infinity describes the process our calculators are stuck in because we still don't know how to properly define 1/0 and program calculators to do so
>>686787147
Can something be created out of nothing? Our universe for example?
>>686788661
If we assume that is true, figuring out 1/0 will kinda mean figuring out where we came from.
In fact, the clusterfuck sounds exactly like this world I live in.
>>686788661
Which is why I am baiting us this wonderful morning.
>>686788631
You can give 1 thing to 0 people an infinite amount of times
>>686788370
that's an approximation tho
like that's not actually what 1/0 is
just like .99999999999999999 isn't 1
it's .99999999999999999
>>686787147
Let's try this, if you're not troll
6/3=2 so 2*3=6
4/2=2 so 2*2=4
Now by your question
10/0=0 means 0*0=10 ?
>>686787742
damn you're retard
>>686789027
Not sure how half of what you said correlates to the other
>>686788285
No, you have 10 pieces still so you have to have groups. If you're dividing it by 0 into 0 groups that doesn't make sense so the agreed upon equation is "10/0 = undefined"
However dividing 0/10 does = 0 since yes, you divided nothing into several groups of nothing
If you have nothing, you can't divide into anything because it is nothing dip shit.
Also, it has to do with the rules of math.
If you divide somthing by a number, the result multiplied by the original divisor will give you the original number. If you divided 1 by 0 and got 0, it means that if you multiplied 0 by 0 you would get 1. Dumb ass.
>>686789034
Dont you mean 10*0=0
And thus 0/0=10 (or any number)
>>686787147
The answer is not 0. You are taking a thing and dividing it by the absence of a thing. You might as well try to slice a cake with your sense of humor.
>>686789183
like, 1 does not equal .99999999, but we approximate it to equal 1 for simplicity.
0/1 does not equal infinity. we could approximate it to for simplicity, but it doesn't equal infinity. y'know
>>686789034
10/0=x
x*0=10
>>686789580
but 0=10 is false
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN
>>686788370
Bump this.
>>686789556
.9999999999(etc)*10=9.9999999999 (etc)
9.999999999 (etc)-.999999999(etc)=9
9/9=1
Therefore .999999999 (etc) = 1
>>686787147
>If I have nothing, and i divided it into 10 pieces. Each piece is exactly nothing.
That's not what 10/0 is, you retard. That would be 0/10. 10/0 means that you divide 10 pieces into zero groups, which is impossible since you still have 10 pieces left that you can't put into any group. You can't divide them because you don't have any groups to put them in.
>>686789908
0 multiplied by an irrationally large number is equal to 10
>>686789027
Incorrect, 0.9 recurring is in fact equal to 1. Assume x = 0.9999 etc. 10x= 9.99999 etc. 10x - x = 9.9999 - 0.9999 therefore 9x = 9 and x = 9/9 = 1
>>686789396
You took the problem inside out (imarightwiththeexpression?) but all in all it amounts in the same conclusion : incoherence
>>686790106
/thread
>>686790223
>>686790426
M8 I was proving that 0.999 does equal one (unless you're Reenforcing the point, in which case cheers)
>>686790354
The answer is undefined because it could be any number whatsoever
>>686790665
I was reinforcing
what if we absolutely get rid of number 0?
then all works out right?
>>686789027
Wrong.
1/3 = 0.33333333333...
2/3 = 0.66666666666...
3/3 = 0.99999999999... = 1
>>686789556
You meant 1/0 right? Cos 0/1 definitely equals 0.
>>686787147
smaller pieces of nothing might be useful in something scienceshit, i guess.
>>686789544
I sometimes understand divide as "of"
1 part "of" 0, isn't 0?
when you divide, you find out how many of the number your dividing by fit into the number you're dividing
Because an infinite amount of 0's fit into any number, calculators will show "math error" because they can't represent infinite amounts
Just multiply the formula to make it workable
2(1/0) = 2/1 = 2
Then divide it by 2 again
2/2 = 1 = 1/0
1/0 = 1
>>686791158
That only explains how our calculators do/do not work
>>686791275
Nope, still not right. 2 X 1/0 is 2/0
>>686791330
the answer would be infinitely large
and also non-existant
You can't fit 0 a finite amount of times into a number, nor an infinite amount as 0 is the lack of a number
number ZERO is nothing, number ZERO don't exist because it don't have a value, only value it have if you have two numbers like 10, 20, 30...
>>686788370
zero is not number neither is infinity
>>686791612
you are right it only explain what is number 10, 20.. but it number zero on it self don't have a value
>>686791628
Wrong: zero is a number, infinity is a transfinite number
Surely it's pi?
>>686792014
Whoa there anon. Andi who do you think you are to impose your binary classification onto numbers. A transnumber can be whatever it identifies with, regardless of how you feel about it. Might consider checking your privilege once in a while.
>>686792033
like the decimal places after which
>>686787147
Go back to school and learn arithmetics.. 0 divided by 10 gives 0. You mixed numerator and denominator, idiot
>>686792033
0.00000000000000 recurring but you'll never find the 0000000000000000001
>>686787147
Your text doesn't reflect your initial problem, you idiot.
>>686792497
so rounded to the nearest decimal place it will always equal zero.
>>686790107
[color=green]>0 multiplied by an irrationally large number is equal to 10[/color]
Sorry, dont know how to greentext
Niggers
>>686787147
>don't know about new binary
21121122 21121111 21121122
For me, it's like dividing something through nothing.
I'm working with math all day long, I know all that kind of shit and argumentations about it.
..But for me, it'll be a logic conclusion, when x/0 = x, since you wouldn't devide x by anything at all.
So, x/0 = x/1, which would prove that 0 = 1, which would prove that everyone here is a huge goddamn faggot, and you should all kill yourselves.
My god there are some retarded answers in this thread. Listen, take any finite number of objects. How many groups of zero objects can you form from that group? 4? 42? 8,641? There is no answer because you can pull any number of groups of zero out of your initial collection and still not have finished dividing the objects into groups of zero. That's why division by zero is undefined - this question about separating a collection of objects into groups of zero objects doesn't make any sense.
>>686787553
Are you a nigger?
If you imagine 0 as an empty vacuum that is literally empty, ask yourself; how many of those could you fit into a box?
It would literally never end and can not end.
>>686788951
No, you can give 1 thing to 0 people 0 times, as in no times. Because when u say you're giving it to no people, you're not giving it. It's incoherent to say you can give something to nobody.
>>686789544
This guy gets it. Zero is not a number, it's an idea representing nothing tangible. Anything divided by zero, then, is "undefined" as the correct answer.
>>686793211 so why isn't any number divided by 0 infinity?
>>686793211
>applying vacuum is empty
Check ’Em
>>686787147
0 goes into any number exactly an infinite number of times.
>>686788661
Many astrophysicists think that, yes, because of the specific properties of matter it could have been created from fluctuations within nothing.
For complicated reasons, it's not as nonsensical as it sounds.
>>686793472
But negative numbers are not tangible either. Would you say that 2/(-1) is undefined ?
>>686787147
1 / 0 is not 0 since 0 * 0 =/= 1.
>>686792656
>Being this new
>>686793472
Sort of a non-sequitur, in that all numbers are subjective descriptors, not objects per se.
Relations between numbers are logical propositions linking descriptors, so division by zero is impossible solely by virtue of being logically impossible.
We can not imagine a way in which something could be divided by zero, because material is never zero (in volume, mass, etc) and zero is simply the descriptor for a lack of material.
Oh and OP's description is 0/10 which is indeed 0.
>>686792656
I gotta know though, what made you think it was some ancient html format instead of just googling it?
If anyone is not trolling and actually interested, watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRRolKTlF6Q
The reason you can't divide by zero is because math is about what works. If you divide by zero, you get nonsense. Math doesn't work if you allow it.
>>686792656
>seriously, do people not just work it out by trial and error?
>>686787553
mind blown. all mathematics is wrong.
>>686795396
More like our entire view of the universe is wrong.
Allegory of the cave blah blah blah.
>>686787147
IF YOU HAVE NOTHING YOU CAN'T DIVIDE IT
/thread/
>>686789034
>being this new
>>686795349
Yeah you think someone could follow a basic logic path:
>that guy and every other guy whose post is green put a ">" in front of his text
>maybe I should put a ">" in front of my text
Not sure if that guy is retard or bait.
>>686795522
>confirmed dubs
like you can't divide apples you don't have
>>686787147
Let us assume the answer is zero
>1/0=0
>2/0=0
>1/0=2/0
>1/0*0=2/0*0
>1=2
It doesn't work
>>686787553
0 is a number, go fuck yourself.
>>686787147
0 is not a number but a description of nothing
>>686787147
seems like you didn't go to university
>>686795829
>you can't divide apples you don't have
Dying and/or communist countries disagree.
>>686795944
but what is nothing?
>>686796339
if you can think of it then nothing is something
>>686794854
<c=green>
>Sorry
</c>
>>686796466
I did it, but how do I make the code disappear?
>>686796339
The total absence of matter and energy in a given volume.
>>686796451
You are mistaking the nothing for your idea of nothing, which is indeed something.
>>686794053
They refer to specific defined values. That's the difference. Zero is just representative of a lack of value.
>>686796015
>>686795829
>>686795522
FIXED for you three faggots:
You can't divide apples you don't have but apples you don't have can be divided, which is why 0/10=0 makes sense. Original fag is arguing OPs question backwards. Unfortunate dubs incident.
>>686789219
>10 chocolate bars
>allergic to chocolate so you cant have any
>Distribute to 10 friends.
>No friends
So is it.
>Still have 10 and group is zero that can have them so you just keep the 10 choco bars
or
>Throw the 10 choc bars away seeing that noone can have them to make 0 choco bars.
because my dick is to long
>>686792307
Underrated post.
>>686792307
best description of quantum computing
upvoted
>>686795928
/thread
>>686796721
Why automatically respond to every post that responds to you without even reading them?
What's the point of a conversation if you are only listening to yourself?
>>686792971
Kek
Convert math to English: 6/3 = 2 is the same as saying "If you have 6 objects and make groups of 3 with them then you will have 2 group2 of objects". x/0 then would be "If you have x objects and make groups of 0 with them then you will have [undefined] groups of objects" because you can't make groups of 0 and end up with a defined number of groups. 0 isn't a group you can make.
>>686797433
>apples
>>686790426
Is the quality of this image so low because it was made like this, or has it been saved and posted over and over again so often that the quality has started to deteriorate?
>>686796721
i dont have it so who divided then, it don't apply to me, so this is not useful for me, only if i get something from division
>>686797771
It's because JPG. It should be a PNG/GIF.
>>686787147
ok try this
10/10=1
10/5=2
10/2 =5
10/1 =10
10/0.5 =20
10/0.05 =200
10/0.00000001 =1000000000
see the patten
as the number you divide by gets smaller, the answer gets bigger.
so
10/0 = more then infinity
that makes no sense, you can't have more then the biggest "number" so it is conceded undefined
>>686797965
See: >>686797692
"If you have 0 apples and make groups of 10 with them then you will have 0 groups of apples."
>>686796866
The chocolate bars still exist, though. You just threw them away, precisely because you can't distribute them in 0 groups.
>>686792971
>>686795396
>>686795928
He's right you dumbass faggots
Just like infinity, 0 is a concept, not a number
>>686787147
Someone may well have said it, can't be arsed to read the thread.
The reason you can't divide by zero is because division is defined to only accept non-zero denominators. It is only impossible because mathematicians have agreed that dividing by zero just isn't useful, or at least that no definition would be universally useful.
If you want to define it, you can just make your own function that works like division in the usual cases, and say that you can also use zero, and define the outcome of that to be whatever you want it to be.
>>686787147
How would I explain this to a retard.
Because there's no such thing as zero something. If you have zero apples, you don't have apples. Dividing with zero is like trying to cut an apple into "it not existing" slices. It just doesn't work.
>>686798802
Nope, it is a number.
There is a difference between infinity, of which there are infinite number (infinity plus one makes infinity, etc), and zero, which is a precise point on the carthesian table.
1^{-2} + 2^{-2} + 3^{-2} + \cdots = \pi^2/6
>>686799094
> zero
> just doesn't work
>>686799001
Sure, and while you're at it you can define 1+1 to equal unicorns but that doesn't mean you aren't an idiot for doing it.
Dividing by zero is a paradox
>>686788285
Wtf are you even talking about?
If you had 0 apples and divide it into 2 pieces, every piece weights 0gram (since there is no apple at all)...no problem there.
But if you have 1 apple of 200grams, you can theoretically devide it into r pieces. 5pieces 40grams each or 2pieces of 100g for example. THE THING YOU CANT DO is to devide the apple into 0 pieces, since 0 pieces would mean the apple wouldnt be there at all, which is impossible, since the other side of the equation clearly states it.
In numbers:
0apples=0gram,
0gram/2=0gram
1apple=200gram,
200gram/2=100gram,
200gram/0 Doesnt equal anything we can describe or recognize right now.
It's not that hard to understand
>>686793380
I meant you can give 0 things to 1 person an infinite amount of times
MathFag here..
The problem works with limits.
If I divide 1 by 1 I get 1
If I divide 1 by 0.1 I get 10
If I divide 1 by 0.001 I get 1000
So the closer we get to 0, the bigger our outcome. So theoretically by 0 it's infinitely big. So some fucked called it infinite and we stopped questioning it.
>>686799850
Which is why infinity times zero is defined as zero in certain contexts (e.g. measure theory).
>>686796866
It means your group which is none get zero chocolate since no people there are able to receive them. Basically the chocolate is left in vanity without purpose or utility
>>686796466
I cant tell if this is bait or hes actually new as fuck
>>686799963
you might as well call Infinty God. How would you like that?
>>686799490
Well no, you can't do that. Addition is already a defined function.
You could however, given that you had defined an object "unicorns" and defined equality for it, make a function f(x, y) such that f(1, 1) = unicorns.
The point is, you can do whatever happens to be useful for the thing you're working with. Of course, it is however useful to be able to reconcile it with other fields of mathematics.
>>686797771
I got it from a dropbox
The biggest problem with your statement is how do you divide nothing? It's literally nothing, you can't hold it, touch it, do anything with it, because it is nothing.
>>686800367
>>686799963
Because do it from the other direction. Divide by -1. Then by -0.01, then by -0.001. You don't go to infinity. You go to negative infinity. Because you get different answers depending on the direction you go, you can't give it one answer. That's why it is undefined
>>686788661
if you are gonna say something about god then here is my question to you, what created god
>>686801097
>>686801232
We have established already that nothing is undefined
>>686801232
Or you can take a one-point compactification of the reals, using just a single point called infinity. Then you get the same limit for 1/x as x approaches zero from either side.
>>686800367
Not true. Infinity can be quantified by defining it as a bijection between sets
>>686801552
Infinity isn't a number though. That's why you can't say something is equal to infinity.
Infinity/1 = Infinity = Infinity/2.
1 does not equal 2, but if you allow infinity to be a number, it creates nonsense algebra. That's why it's a concept, not a number.
>>686787147
You're a fucking idiot.
>>686797389
+1 saged this idiot
>>686802188
What is a number? (I'm not asking because I need you to explain it to me.)
>>686799963
So 1/0=infinity in your opinion? I dont think so. I also dont think mathfags think that way. It doesnt even make sense since even a fake mathfag should be abble to pull the following out of his uneducated ass
1/0=inf |x0
1=inf x 0
As long as i'm not retarded inf x 0 still equals 0 which would lead to 1=0 which i highly doubt is true in our universe lol
>>686802880
Not activating Adobe flash for you; sorry, anon.
If I have a whole cake cus I'm fat as fuck, and I divide it zero times, that means its still one whole goddamn cake. Problem solved.
>>686803328
Math is about what works, and numbers are defined concepts that work within math. 2 + 2 equals 4, because it works. It's consistent. We can manipulate it, balance out the sides, etc.
And with this consistent math, using defined numbers, we get the equations that were needed to make your phone and go to the moon. Because they work.
When you put infinity as a number, you get things like i said earlier. Infinity/1 = Infinity - Infinity/2. Which means 1=2.
If you treated infinity like a number, you have to accept nonsense like that. If we did, our equations wouldn't work, and we wouldn't be able to make things like your phone.
So, since it doesn't work, it can't be treated like a number. Again, if we treated it like a number, everything else in math would crumble. And then, we wouldn't have the equations that we do have, which helped us get to the moon and make your phone.
And that is why. Math is what works. Infinity as a number doesn't work. Dividing by zero doesn't work. So, it's not math.
>>68680007
inf x 0 doesn't always equal 0. You clearly don't know what you're talking about so your opinion is irrelevant
>>686803985
Search for "field (mathematics)." Then maybe you can come up with a better answer.
>>686787541
10/0 is like saying you have 10 apples and you are just going to crush them out of existence
>>686787147
Think about it like this:
10 / 5. How many times can you fit the number 5 into 10? twice. 2 is the answer.
10/1 How many times can you fit the number 1 into 10? 10 times. 10 is the answer.
10/0 How many times can you fit the number 0 into 10? The question doesn't make sense. You can't even say infinity, because it doesn't even tend towards a value.
therefore x/0 is undefined.
>>686804474
You could eat them, but they would turn into shit then.