Okay, just because a calculator can't conceptualize nothing, doesn't mean you can't divide by it. I submit to you;4 ÷ 0 = 4 Yes, that's right, it shares the same answer as 4 ÷ 1.0 always represents NOTHING and humans can conceptualize this better than a calculator.We can conceptualize this ourselves, 4 divided by NOTHING, nothing happened, its still 4. You can also mathematically represent this by crossing out the 0 as soon as you use it, but then something else must be removed, the equation itself, the divide sign is also removed. So 4 ÷ 0, cross out 0 and ÷, you are left with 4.If you want to get super technical you can say the answer is both 4 and Infinite. But a more reasonable answer is, no division ever took place in this mathematical scenario and that's all 4 ÷ 0 represents in mathematics.So don't ever let someone tell you, you can't. Instead, you just don't. (Please fix calculators, help the computers!)
>it's another episode of retards thinking that something is nothing
>>16812331casually breaking the notions of "function" and "infinity" in the process by having a binary operation returning 2 values
>>16812342Thats just how using NOTHING in mathmatics works. 0 is just about the most imaginary number without being one.
>>16812348curious... why do a + 0, a - 0 and a / 0 do nothing but a * 0 becomes 0?
a / 0 ∉ R, but you could create a new set where that is defined in the same way you can define a set to calculate √-1. That would be /thread and do your part to study the properties of that set.
>>16812331a/0 is infinityit's obvious and logically consistentit just doesn't fit our math, which suggests there are some things we have done wrong or are incompleteand most likely infinity is one of them, cause we are too dumb to fully understand it
>>16812356Because when you multiply by a decimal point it starts going backwards. Like 3 x .1 is .3. Any multiplication below 1 starts to reverse its properties approaching 0. In reality the only numbers that matter are the ones between 0 and 1. The terms used like divide, and multiply are essentially fallacy.
>>16812479Because our understanding of mathematics might be intrinsically flawed 3 x .1 might actually be 3.3 instead of .3. Its how we conceptualize numbers.
Just redefine division as how many times it's divided instead of into how many parts it's divided so x / 0 would be like x / 1 from old system, x / 1 same as x / 2 from old system, etc
In nature, things dont divide or multiply.They split, so, a whole minuses half of itself, and splits from it, and then the two halfs start ADDING and growing to a point of stability where they can split again.Division and multiplication are human attempts to play with Math, but not understanding that all equations are adding and subtracting. Multiplying is adding, with extra steps, and division is subtracting with extra fallacy.
>>16812490Right, theres nothing wrong with dividing by zero because the concept of division in general is just playing with numbers, it can be redefined.
In nature 40/2 = 20 is more accurately depicted as 40 - 1/2(40) = 20 it's not actually dividing; it's taking half of itself and subtracting.
So when anyone says you can't divide by 0 it means that our understanding of divide is flawed, it should be viewed as an extension of subtracting not an entirely self-sufficient form of stable equating. Nature works off of stability and not ease of equation. AKA multiply and divide are shorthand math TOOLS for human understanding and simplicity fact. But not true math.
Same with the use of POWERS, a power is another shorthand tool for pure addition. But it would be far to complicated to write out otherwise. Extra tools are used only to describe complicated functions easier, but doesn't make them accurate or real.
>>16812501do the same for ⅛ and 1/π
>>16812521Ahh a Fibonacci number... Now we're getting interesting. 3.infinite haha I would also like to know the addition equation to pi. Its probably more simple than it seems.
"Rationally" dividing by zero is extending the rational number line to the projective rational number line. In simple terms, we take 1:0 to be as legitimate a ratio as 0:1.
>>16812331then what's 4/0*0?>>16812420this is probably the sanest take here
>>168123314/0 = 44 = 4 * 0No
>divide by>goes intologically speaking, these are two different information expressions.0 goes into 4 infinity times1 goes into 4 four times4 divided by 1 is 44 divided by 0 is >4? but that is the same as divided by 1>infinity? that doesn't seem right>not expressible, do not divide by 0there's also that multiplication and division can be inversely related, so 4 x 0 = 0, means 0 doesn't do anything, or that 0 doesn't go anywhere. 0 isn't tending towards either positive 1 or negative 1, which may also be why most logical counts begin with positive 1 to count positive increments.so if 0 doesn't go anywhere, and 0 doesn't tend towards another number, then 0 doesn't go into 4 at all. 0 goes into 4 no times4/0 = 0n/0 = 0n*0 = 0n+0 = nn-0 = n
>>16812331you can just give each 0 a size instead of treating them all the same.
>>16816223>each 0Sets have unique members.
