Why can't you divide by zero? The answer is obviously infinity
You can divide by 0.
>>16492962so is 5/0 < 6/0 ?
Define division as the inverse of multiplication. [math]a/0=b[/math][math]a = 0 b[/math]thus it only makes sense if a = 0
>>16492970Obviously since the numerator is larger, retard
>>16492962because you reach contradictions with most algebras. Some structures permit division by zero, but the only useful one is the Riemann sphere.
>>16492975lets see what happens if we allow thisinf < infcool, we just invented a toy that kills any equation and turns it into nonesense.and this is why you cant divide by 0.how to go on with math? exclude it.et voila.
>>16492990There absolutely are bigger and smaller infinities.
>>16493010not accessible by dividing real numbers by zero.
>>16493013Just make up new infinitis for this purpose, like we did with roots of negative numbers
>>16492974Or if b=infinity
It's like writing 2=3
2*0=3*0DIVISION BUUUYYYYYY ZHEEROOOOOO2=3
So if i have a standard equation like x^2 + 3x = 6x and then i divide both sides by x, does that mean zero is not in the domain of x?
>>16493240How come x = 0 is a solution of that equation but not x + 3 = 6? math is dumb
>>16493186but 0 times infinity is 0
>>16493249Division by zero is just neutral mind. It would cause a random infinite division.
x^2 = 0x = 01 = 0
I will stick to mathematical models of real measurable science experiments not abstract math
>>16492962how many times does nothing go into something?
>>16493186no. Multiplication is repeated addition. 0+0+0+0+0... an infinite number of times is still 0.Or, look at it this way:How many infinities do you have?>I have zero infinitiesso you have 0>>16492990that happens in other ways with infinity though because infinity can't be treated like a normal number.EG, For any number greater than 1:x < x^2now if x is infinity... what then?
>>16492974so can we say that 0/0 = 0 ?
>>16493024nope I did not.
>>16493393also nope.
>>16493421but then why not? It fits >>16492974
>>16493374>Multiplication is repeated addition. 0+0+0+0+0...And division is repeated subtraction. The number of 0's you can subtract from 0+0+0+0... can be anything, or in other words, the unknown variable "a."
>>16492962Christian Bale is relentlessly handsome. I bet he has an exceptionally pretty penis.
>>16493362is 0 nothing?
>>16492962If you divide by non-zero infinitesimals the answer is infinity (see the alpha formalism of nonstandard analysis), but if you allow division by zero then not only there aren't infitesimals, every number is equal to zero
>>164932362*inf=3*inf2=3QUICK GET RID OF INFINITY IT BROKE MY ARITHMETIC
>>16492962ofcdivision x/y is how many times y can be subtracted from x until x is 05 - 0 is 5... you can do this infinite times0 is already 0, so 0/0 is 0
>>16493024The roots of negative numbers actually are meaningful concepts with all sorts of actual implications (especially for dynamical systems that involve rotation or oscillation). Your "many infinities so we can divide by zero" idea is nonsensical and also useless on top of that.
>>16493688If it is so meaningful, why doesn't a probability of 0.5i have a meaning?
>>16493434ok, but why shoulnt be 1 instead?if you give me a reason its not 1, I will accept its 0.
>>16492962Because you're a bitch, and you have to follow some rules and regulations given to you by your pimp.
>>16492962yes, we just "don't know" whether its positive or negative
>>16493010>There absolutely are bigger and smaller infinities.Stupid language games.
>>16493688>uselessBruh it's the entire foundation of calculus
>>16494359>>16494359>muh heckin higher mathand Calculus is good for what exactly? Nothing
>>16492962>The answer is obviously infinityWhich infinity?
>>16494340This. You can match as many terms as you want, but both just go forever the same way. At any
>>16492970Is 5^0 > 6^0?
>>16493010No, either something goes on indefinitely or it stops at some point, there is no such thing as a bigger or smaller amount of indefiniteness.
>>16493362Every unit of something is a factorial amount of nothing. 1=0! which makes nothing exactly equal to the inverse factorial of unity.
>>164935240 is the exact numerical arithmetic implementation of the additive element while nothing is the common term for an additive element.
>>16495942Bro prove to me that the real numbers are bijective with the integers or any other set with alep(0) cardinality. If you can then publish a paper and blow everyone's minds and like uproot the past maybe 2 centuries of math.
>>16494405> "And calculus is good for what exactly? Nothing"Guys look at this guy, he's on the MATH/science board stating this. He is a fool, but that's alright.
>>16492962You can, the answer is 0
>>16492974engineer here. infinity times zero equals something finite.
>>16495945>1=0!tell me more
>>16495945>>16496924Yo check it out, right - iz got somefin proper mental to tell you about nuffin! So like, even tho when you do this mad ting - ya know, that exclamation mark ting to zero (that's 0! for all you mathematician geezas out there) - it does equal 1, yeah? But don't get it twisted bruv! That don't mean we can start buildin' all numbers just by messin' about wiv zero, you get me?Like, the only reason dem clever mathematics mans decided that 0! should equal 1 was coz it made all their other sums work proper smooth, innit? It ain't cos there's some deep philosophical ting about nuffingness or whateva. Respect to the mathematics still, but that's just the way it is, know what I mean?
>>16496924 >>16497072it's a combo of the empty product and accepting that there IS a way to arange no objects, and the ammount of ways to arrange them is 1
>>16497072>>16497420is 0! the same concept as 0^0?
>>16492962zero isn't a number or some shit.
>>16492970>>16492974>>16492990>>16493229>>16493236>>16493649The multiplicative absorption property of infinity means that 2*infinity = 3*infinity = infinity. There's no logical contradiction in stating that any number divided by 0 is infinity even if you can abuse the algebra to imply 2 = 3. It's simply an irreversible operation. Information is destroyed as a result of performing the operation. Taking the derivative of an equation is another irreversible operation which is why when you integrate you always include +C.
>>16497729based and truthpilled>>16497420>a combo of the empty product>a combo>empty>product...What the fuck...>>16493393No, and this will be proven in like 100 years, but 0/0=1. I would do it but le modern le pruuf is a cancer that needs to finish its job and cannibalize the people who carry on the legacy of unnecessary proofs before we can start making any meaningful progress and getting some important results.>>16493341Like what?Seriously name just 1 mathematical model of real measurable science experiments that's more important than this, or let me save you the trouble and tell you, you can't...>>16493010Only a theoretical mathematician totally disconnected from reality and reason would make such a claim that there is any more than 1 infinity. As soon as you bring 1 infinity within the same realm or space as another, the lesser ceases to exist as an infinity. Besides, infinity actually does not exist at all.>>16492970No they are actually the same;5/0 = 6/0 = 1/0 = 0and,1/0 = 0/1which leads to another most important result:0*0 = 1*1 = 0/0 = 1/1 = 1which in itself also shows that 1 is not 0;that is becauseasx/0 = 0, except for when x = 0because when x=0, x/0 = 1It shows how 0 is absolutely unique, in that it is listed and works among the numbers, but is not actually a true number in the way that the others
>>16497430if you mean that if they are both the empty product, then yes
>>16497605So? Neither is infinity.Neither is a basket of oranges, but you still can divide them by two.
because you cant slice a pie if there is no pie. you dont get infinete pie slices by cutting a non existamce pie.
>>16498486dividing pie when there's no pie is 0/n, not n/0
>>16492962Why would the answer be infinity?It should be zero.Otherwise you can never divide and reach zero.If you try to divide nothing among 3 people you get nothing.If you try to divide 3 things among zero people you get nothing still since "no one" can receive anything.The assumption that it is infinity is circular reasoning error that ignores the reality which the principle was designed upon.If dividing by zero had any merit reality would be completely different and we could easily have infinite supplies of things.
>>16493244explain this someone smarter than me
>>16492962https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR23nPNqf6A
>>164929621 x 1 = 2I’ve found if you take the square root of the flower of life and conjugate it with a dodecahedron, every microradian within the six degrees of freedom is bisexual just like carbon.
>>16492962If infinity "exists" (as in : is a quantity, can be quantified), yes. But that's the problem : infinity as it is treated today is a fictional concept. Infinity, by definition is not something that is reached, it's litterally in the name. There is NEVER a point where you have reached the final amount of numbers, so it CANNOT exist. But modern physicists/mathematicians insist on our universe being composed of infinities, that is simply not possible. If present states follow infinities, then that would mean that they cannot exist, because they would represent a state that would NEVER be reached (i.e. it CANNOT be reached). Never means never, sorry mathcucks and physicscels.
>>16492966>>16492962Why not, you stupid bastard?
>>16497072Just because they didn't intend on making a profound statement on nothingness doesn't mean their efforts didn't result in a profound statement of nothingness, actually the fact that they didn't even set out trying, its just what they discovered along the way, is what makes it all the more profound.
>>16492962Fundamental question about math ey?You can if you use geometric construction of circular inversion. The reflection of point P, P', is not found, for the line is in parallel.
>>16492962Does it personally affect you that you can't divide by zero?
>>16492962It's whatever we define it to be, and it's meaningless without a use.If defining division by zero as equal to infinity helps us in some way proves something or allows us to calculate something, then it shall be so.
