Divide by 0

That is all.

DNE

Ok.

We know 0.000...0001=0 because 9.999...=1 and 1-1=0, but 1-9.999... is clearly 0.000...0001. To multiply by a decimal like 0.000...0001, you simply treat it as if it were a whole number, in this case one. So let's say we divide three by zero.

3/1=3

Now that you've divided, just move the answer by the same number of decimal places as your last answer. Since we moved one an infinate nmber of places, we move 3 by an infinate number of places. Therefore anything divided by zero is equal to infinity. Except 0, which is one. And negaive numbers, which I guess would be negative infinity.

>>3
good lord is that some epic fail

To multiply by a decimal like 0.000...0001, you simply treat it as if it were a whole number, in this case one.

>>3
That made no fucking sense.  GTFO

>>3
I have to fix a little part of your equation
(9.999...=1) = Fail
The real answer is 1 = 1.

You dont need to thank me because : I AM THE MASTER OF THE OBVIOUS

Dividing on a mac = 5

1-1=0, but 1-.999... is clearly 0.000...001 = 0
1-1=0, but .999...-1 is clearly -0.000...001 = 0

Therefore, 3/0 = +- infinity.
+ infinity =/= - infinity
Contradiction

phail

>>7

>>3 here, sorry, I meant to say 0.9999...=1. 9.9999...=10.

>>9
That is exactly why 0.99~ = 1

Why is it possible to multiply by zero but not divide?

>>12
zero has no multiplicative inverse, to divide is to multiply by the inverse.

>>11

That is not exactly why 0.99~ = 1.
That's the maths equivalent of bullshit really.

Consider:  xy=1
Solving for y gives: y=(1/x)
Considering values:
x=1 y=1
x=.1 y=10
x=.01 y=100
x=.001 y=1,000

lim(x->0) (1/x)
y-> infinity
No limit
Dividing by zero approaches infinity or negative infinity depending on from which direction it is approached.

>>15
There is a difference between dividing by 0 and taking a limit.  You cannot simply divide by 0.  Lurk moar or GTFO

No real number satisfies all the properties that would be required of a dividend (or whatevr it's called) of zero

E.g. there's no real x such that 0*x = 10.

10/0 = x
fixed

x/0 = "Error. Divided by zero"

>>15
Consider: xy=0
Solving for y gives: y=(0/x)
Considering values:
x=1 y=0
x=.1 y=0
x=.01 y=0
x=.001 y=0

lim(x->0)(0/x)
y-> 0

You invented a function where the limit as x approached 0 is infinity.

I invented a function where the limit as x approached 0 is 0.

HOW CAN THAT POSSIBLY BE????

Oh wait, division by zero is "undefined", that's why.

>>2
You subtracted 0

0/0=?
any numeral divided by itself should equal to one.

YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS
YOUR MEME IS NOW USELESS

nullity

0/0=?
any numeral except 0 divided by itself should equal to one.

fixed

0/0 --> 0 or infinity, depending on the methods used to get to 0/0

0/0= HOLY SHIT, A PORTAL OPENED UP IN FRONT OF ME AND A LION CAME OUT AND BIT MY DICK OFF!

>>25
"0/0 --> 0 or infinity, depending on the methods used to get to 0/0"

Don't forget that you can get the answer 1 as well:

lim(x->0) x/x = 1

or 2

lim(x->0) 2x/x = 2

or pi

lim(x->0) pi*x/x = pi

LIMITS ARE FUN! THEY CAN TELL US SO MUCH ABOUT DIVISION BY ZERO!

Does anyone ITT understand the concept of "undefined" and "DNE", yet? Please raise your hand if you do.

By definition, division is reverse multiplication. The answer sought is 0/0 = x, therefore x*0 = 0, and thus x can be any number in existance.

Let's clear somethings up here.

>>28
Yeah, almost. Division is reverse multiplication, that is:
a * b = c
and
c / b = a

OH WAIT. Go back and read the rules. That's only true IF B DOES NOT EQUAL ZERO.

>>27
I'll raise my hand. Because I understand both. You get DNE when evaluating the limit of 1/x, because the limit is different when approaching from the left as it is when approaching from the right. And while it is true that as x approaches 0 in x/x, the limit is 1, that doesn't mean that 0/0 is one, or two, or pi. Limits only show how a function behaves as it approaches a certain number. Just because the limit exists doesn't mean that the point itself exists.

>>26
This is correct.

>>25
Haha, no.

>>23
Nullity is the stupidest shit ever. That guy was a fucking moron.

>>17
Yes.

>>16
>>15
Both of you are correct. The limit does not exist, but that is irrelevant to the problem at hand.

>>14
Thank you.

>>9
>>5
>>3
Okay, let's put out a fucking notice:
IF YOU EVER USE THE FAKE FUCKING NUMBER "0.000...0001" IN ANY POST SERIOUSLY, EVERYTHING IN THAT POST IS AUTOMATICALLY WRONG. THAT IS NOT A FUCKING NUMBER, IT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU MADE UP. YOU CANNOT HAVE AN INFINITE NUMBER OF ZEROS AND THEN END THE NUMBER. THAT MEANS IT IS NOT INFINITE. IF YOU USE 0.000...0001 EVER AGAIN, I'LL COCKSLAP YOU INTO OBLIVION.

>>29

"That's only true IF B DOES NOT EQUAL ZERO."

That is only because using refersing it inot multiplication dosn't give you a specific number. It's still better than LOL IMPOSSIBLE.

There's a reason I ended my post with "phail", and I wasn't serious.

>>29

Nullity itself wasn't that stupid an idea. It just wasn't that guys idea, and he didn't use it in the correct way.

You can use the idea of actually defining a multiplicative inverse of 0 to extend division from a partial function on the reals to a whole function, it's called wheel theory.

>>31
You still can't say that 1 - 0.999... = 0.000...0001. That's retarded. 1 - 0.999... = 1 - 1 = 0. There is no such thing as 0.000...0001.

>>32
Nullity was a stupid idea. Do you know why? Nullity was just that guy assigning a new name to the term "undefined" and taking credit for it. He's a cunt and deserves to have his teaching license revoked for it.

>>33

Did you even read my post beyond the first sentence?

I agree the guy was a fucking idiot, but the idea of defining a value for 0/0 can actually be used in the way I explained in the second half of my post. Again look up wheel theory.

NULLITY

I SHOULD HAVE MAILED IT TO THE MARX BROTHERS

>>34
Where would that be useful, though?

AMERICHAN!!! FUCK YEAH!!!

http://www.americhan.co.nr/

>>36

It's mathematical abstraction, it's useful for it's own sake.

That's like asking, why bother with rigorous analysis, it's not like we need to now why maths works if we can just assume it does and use the results.

>>38
Why didn't you tell 4chan about wheel theory in the other 30 some posts of "omg division by 0"?

Though interesting, it is a very strange algebraic structure.

>>38
Well,

...touché, then.