>holds a gun to your headDivide by zero. NOW.
Obviously infinity.
Doesn't really make a difference. I'll let him pull the trigger and spare the city
>>16806282The calculator says no.
>>16806282Err.0
>>16806282Horseshoe theory. Zero is unsigned. Likewise, infinity is unsigned.
>>16806319x divided by infinity is 0, though. it has a value.
>>16806321Yes (if x is finite, obviously). I'm saying that x divided by 0 is infinity by the same logic. And preëmpting the argument that infinity can be magically gifted a sign, to confuse the answer, even though zero doesn't have one.
>Divide by zero. NOW.Okay. 0^0=1. Since x^0=x/x, I just divided by zero.
>>16806332x^0 has nothing to do with x/x. It means that you're not doing any multiplication and that x has nothing whatsoever to do with the multiplication you're not doing.
>>16806319>infinity is unsigned-t. Retard
>>16806338Why would something that isn't a number have a sign?
>>16806343-t. Never calculated a limit before.
>>16806335wronga^0 = a^(n-n) = a^n/a^n = 10/0 = 1
>>16806347I'm sorry your GED class taught you that. Do you also use ln for log?
>>16806349I agree that 0/0 = 1. The rest of what you wrote is gibberish headcanon.
>>16806282Okay, I arbitrarily define x/0 = 0, and I say there is a remainder of x.
>>16806282which zero? define its size.
>>16806282the proof that broke /pol/
>>16806282easy, 1/0=inf, 1/inf=0, and 0*inf=inf*0=stop being a fucking niggerhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line
>>16806326>even though zero doesn't have one.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signed_zero>>16806332nah, 0^0=1 is due to the empty product, not x^0=x/xhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_product
>>16806649>0.00000...000001nigger, that shit ain't even wronghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
>>16806654>In ordinary arithmetic, the number 0 does not have a signLiterally the second sentence of your baby link.
>>16806282Q. WHAT IF INFINITY AND ZERO ARE EFFECTIVELY THE SAME NUMBER? OR 'INFINITY' IS SIMPLY NEGATIVE ZERO?>the equations give the same result if your treat them as identical
>>16806343Just because it is not a number it doesn't mean it can't have a sign.
>>16807336iHas a sign.We just don't know what it is because we haven't invented it yet..
Positive infinityYou shouldn’t assume field operations are consistent outside of it
>>16806350What's the limit of 1/(x^2) as x approaches zero?Now what's the limit of ln(x) as x approaches zero?
(1/2) / (1/0)=> (1/2) * (0/1)=> 0/2=> 0
I got everything and nothing here
>>16806353its just literal definitions
>>16807481makes sense to me, if you used a really small É™ > 0 you would get a really small number
>>16807407Who cares? OP says divide by zero, not>do a bunch of division by nonzero shit that gets closer and closer to zero and imagine what all the different answers aim at
>>16807731Who gives a fuck what OP wants?My point is infinity is a signed value.
>>16808136>Who gives a fuck what OP wants?Because that's how a thread works?>My point is infinity is a signed value.Infinity isn't a value. But if you're gonna pretend it is, in order to answer the question and not die, the projective line is more germane than some kiddy pool muh limits tripe from remedial analysis that doesn't give you an answer.
>>16808150>Because that's how a thread works?You must be new here.
>>16808167>I model myself to the LCD of retards
>>16808173Based. Me too.
>>16806321So infinity multiplied by zero can be any number you want it to be?
>>16806335>It means that you're not doing any multiplication and that x has nothing whatsoever to do with the multiplicationNo, it means you are multiplying x by its own inverse x^0 = x^(1-1) = x^1 * x^-1 = x* 1/x = x/x.>>16806349>>16806353>gibberish headcanonNo, he just kind of skipped a step and generalized it for n instead of 1 and you are easily confused, so you can't make sense of it.
>>16807354You used the sign, i can be +i or -i and since you didn't specify -, the + is implied by convention.
>>16807316and it has it in non-ordinary arithmetic, although every system that has floating point arithmetic has it so, it's actually boringly commonplace
>>16807316That is wrong though, in ordinary arithmetic the sign of 0 is arbitrary since +0=-0 since addition and subtraction by zero always results in the the exact same thing.
>>16808173based
>>16806282>Divide by zero. NOW.Ok. 5/0.
>>16808457No, an exponent of 0 means you're not doing any multiplication. It doesn't mean you're multiplying 1 by x then dividing by x again. That's just silly, if not schizophrenically retarded.Same with x*0. You're not adding x to 0 then subtracting x again, you're doing no addition at all.
>>16808578is that the reduced from?
