Why is 0/0 undefined?

We should be able to define it just like everything in mathematics.

it has different values depending on what pattern you follow.  For certain purposes you could define it as an infinite value or as zero or one, but unless you have some reason for picking one of those, it's sort of an undecidable problem.

but if we define it, the world will implode..

>>3
pffft, not even.

Because it only has a specific value in context. If you try to ask "What is 0/0", the answer could be any number and still be correct. Thus it is undefined.

SAME NUMBER/SAME NUMBER=1
0/0=1
MATHS+COMMONSENSE=OBVIOUS

0/ANY NUMBER=0
0/0=0
MATHS+COMMONSENSE=OBVIOUS

ANY NUMBER/SMALL NUMBER=BIG NUMBER
ANY NUMBER/0=INFINITY
MATHS+COMMONSENSE=OBVIOUS

0 apples divided between 0 people means that each person gets -infinite and infinite pieces each at the same time and everything in between

x = 0/0 would mean that 0*x=0 which is true for any x, hence 0/0 can have no particular value.

>>10
>>8
>>7
>>6
lol, winners

>>9 missing slightly on the common sense factor there, I'm afraid

If a number is divided by another number, the result is a number which, when multiplied by the divisor, results in the dividend.  Thus, it is natural to assume, that if some amount of apple were to be divided among 0 people, they would all receive the same amount.  Clearly, the amount of apple divided is not relevant, when the number of people is 0.  We can conclude that each non-person will receive the same size non-piece of non-apple, in equal non-proportions.  This non-ness is inconsequential, and explicitly indicates the non-ery of non-onism.  Consider the following:  How many times must 0 apples be cut to receive 3 portions?  Twice!  How many times for 2 portions?  Once!  How many timse for 1 portion? None!  The pattern is simple and provides no reason for extended query.  How many times thus must no apple be divided to receive no portion?  Negative Once!  Or "unonce" if you will.

>>10
Not if we make 0/0=1 an axiom.

>>14
Except that would lead to contradictions.

>>15
Not if we make true = false an axiom.

>>15
Contradictions?  In my theorem!?

>>10

x = 0/0 -> 0*x = 0 * 0/0 -> 0 = 0 * 0/0

0 = 0*0/0 -> 0/0 = (0*0/0)/0 -> 0/0 = 0/0 * 0/0

0/0 = (0/0)^2

this only happens with 1 and 0

take a pick

according to L'Hôpital's rule, a*(x/x), when x is limited to 0 = a

let's say i have money and friends
let's say i want to distribute x money amongst x friends 3 times

this makes something like 3*(x/x) = 3

now let's say i have no money or friends... i just made cash \o\

>>18

don't be daft

infinite 0s fit into 0

3 0s fit into 0

>>22
liar

Take the integral of 0 u get an arbitary contants, to get these contants u will need the intial values of whateva system ended up as 0/0

now we have A/B

if A == B  --> A/B = 1

if A =/= B then the dirivative d/dx(A/B) = O

The problem is you can increase every given fraction to 0/0.
So in 0/0=x, x needs to represent the result of every possbile fraction.
Perhaps you can put it like this: x becomes the complete set of real numbers?