I am not talking about reals you idiot. I am talking about a 0 ring. A ring with one element. Which is it's own multiplicative and additive identity. There is no point thinking about operations with other elements which are not members of that ring. Please learn some algebra and come back
>Seeing as 0 is not a real number
of course it is, and again I wasn't talking about reals.
The 0 ring is absolutely useless you cunt. I can't believe you've been hammering this on for so long. Just do us all a service and go fucking hang yourself.
i think he meant that all numbers^0=1 because we all know 2^0=1;
20^0=1 and so on; so if we take a look at the graph of the function f(x):x^0=? we see that it is a constant with y=1 and no other thing
oh wait, is that all you can say about the 0 ring? I am not saying just because it's possible to divide by 0 in the 0 ring, that you can divide in a bigger ring. K THANKISBYA
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-19 12:30 (sage)
>>47
Jesus H. Christ. We know what you're saying. The thing is, NOBODY CARES.
x/0=? is like saying, "how many nothings are there in something?" So really, the answer is none or, 0. To say that "zero isn't a real number" doesn't mean much because the purpose of a number is to explicitly describe some measurement of a quantity. For one to suggest that a number is anything more significant (as if 1 or 2/3 are anything by themselves) is to demonstrate that one has been indoctrinated with intuitism, and really never clearly understood or deduced anything in ones life. ok bitch on...
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-24 2:16
die horribly
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 8:55
1 / 0 = ∞ you mofos; however, 10²³ is not a better approximation than 2. Oh and n MOD 0 = n.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 11:11
>>51 >>53
how many times do i have to say this. "in a zero ring fuckers"
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 12:36
>>53
please explain exactly how 1/0 would be infinity.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 13:22
infinite 0s fit into 1, which is false as infinite 0s = 0, but some people just don't realise that 0 isn't a real number as they are inferior and stupid
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 13:42 (sage)
>>56
Some people also have a social life and don't spend time caring about such worthless shit. But you wouldn't know that, would you...
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 19:17
>>55
Closure, walking an infinitely small amount towards both sides, and common sense.
>>56
Didn't know it was not a real number. 0 Є R IIRC.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-25 20:23
>>58
0.1*2 = 0.2
0.1*3 = 0.3
0.1*4 = 0.4 etc etc..
no matter how many time you multiply 0.1 the next number is always higher, so if you multiply it by infinity it becomes infinity
0*2 = 0
0*3 = 0
etc..
0*infinity = 0
0 just doesn't share the same properties as other numbers
Jesus why do you fags keep bringing infinity into this? go back to high school and finish that math first lol
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-26 8:35
>>59
You lost, I meant approximation like 1/n=x; x grows as you approach zero.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-26 9:53
>>60
look you idiot. take a 0 ring. consiting on only 0. it's additive identiy is 0 in the ring. and mutiplicative identity is 0 in the ring.
so we have 0/0 = 0 in the 0 ring. we aren't talking in any other ring. so fuck off
Name:
d2006-01-26 10:28
The zero ring may, or may not, exist; depending on your lecturer's taste.
In any case, this is all useless trivia, hence there are really no standard definition.
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-26 13:40
>>64
of course it exists {0} with addition 0+0=0 multiplication 0x0=0
additive identity 0, 0+0 = 0, additive inverse 0 of 0 , 0 + 0 = 0 and then you have the commutativity and distributivity
0+(0+0) = (0+0)+0
0(0+0)=0x0 +0x0=(0+0)0
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-26 15:01
>>65
In other words, it's completely useless except for fuckwits who want to be able to divide by 0 and be "right".
Name:
Anonymous2006-01-26 15:11
>>65
No, sometimes the condition is that 0=1, ala rings. This axiom makes the zero ring impossible to construct. The trivial ring then becomes ({0,1),+,*).