Anyone who tries it will release about 3×1018 joules of energy from the zero-point source of spacetime. That's about as much energy that was released in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.
Don't be fuckin' crazy and think that you'll just divide by zero and survive such an energy release.
>>1
1. Take any number (for example, 1)
2. Follow it by a fraction bar or division symbol (1/)
3. Put a zero on the other side (1/0)
4. O SHI-
5. ??????
6. PROFIT!!!
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-30 17:00
eBaum is a thief.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-30 18:14
Lets look at what happens when you divide a number by numbers close to zero:
1/.00001 = 100,000
1/.00000000000001 = 100,000,000,000,000
It would appear that the closer to dividing by zero you get, the closer your answer gets to infinity, as opposed to something interesting.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-30 20:37
1/0 = Infinity.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-30 21:17
dude ur so fucking stupid. It's so easy to divide by zero. Just Get a number and divide zero times. Don't expect an answer though cuz there is no answer. It's undefined. So if u get a question like that on a test, just write, undefined and it should be right.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 0:30
can't divide directly by zero
it's not infinity
lim x->0 1/x -> infinity but directly dividing a constant by 0 doesn't get you anything
If you approach from the negative side, you just get more and more negative approaching negative infinity as you approach 0.
So, at x=o you have where the approach of negative infinity and positive infinity meet, and it is undefined.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 2:04
>>8
of course undefined is what one would write on a test, but when you say "Just get a number and divide zero times" that sounds like "get a number and don't divide it" which implys you would be left your number as if you divided by one.
Meanwhile I'm wondering what takes place when you make the jump from x = .oooooooooooooo1 to x = 0.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 2:07
>>11
so 1/0 = negative infitiy and positive infinity?
either way it looks like the absolute value of infinity
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 3:54
infinity's magnitude is infinite. It has no absolute value.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 5:33
>>8 >>12
but you don't say "Just get a number and divide zero times", you say "Just get a number and divide it ONE time, by the number zero"
heh
lim(x->a) f rougly translated means the value that is approached by 'f' as 'x' approaches 'a'.
Lim IS absolute value! It is wrong to say (or write) that Lim itself approaches some value. Lim IS that value.
Wrong:
lim x->0 1/x -> infinity
Right:
lim x->0 1/x = infinity
Name:
Krieger2007-10-31 13:46
To understand dividing by zero, you need to understand math. It is not an absolute answer to everything, it's simply our best attempt at trying to simplify the universe and its problems. Assuming this, math is only what you make of it. So to divide by zero, you need to define divide. Is is how many times the denominator will go into the numerator? Is it what you get when you separate the numerator into denominator pieces? It can have many answers, but seeing as there is no point in deciding which one of these is correct, it has been decided that none are, and as such is undefined. So just don't divide by zero.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 16:11
>>18
i dunno how to add superscript to this forum, but just pretend + is in superscript.
C/0+ = infinity
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 16:14
>>16
Being proud of not knowing shit got old in middle school. Underage b&.
The easiest way to understand division by 0 is by just plotting out f(x) = 1/x and seeing what happens near the Y axis.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 17:49
>>21
pretty sure that just proves a limit exists bubs
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 18:41
Okay, so if I have four cookies, and two small children to equally distribute them to, they each get two. That's four divided by two (4/2), which is two (2).
Distributing ten cookies to three kids is three cookies to a kid, with one left over. 10/3 = 3 with Remainder 1.
Anyone who can tell me how many cookies I give to a kid if I have some cookies and no kids wins teh Internets and has successfully divided by zero.
Anyone who tells me how many cookies I give to zero kids when I have zero cookies needs to show their work to the world, as this would successfully solve 0/0 and, by extension, 0^0 (zero to the zero power.
I'm an azn, I know math. So, look:
- operation x/0 is not defined (when x not 0)
- operation 0/0 is indeterminate
What does it mean "not defined"? In simple words: you can drive your car but you can not fly with it. Operation "flying" is not defined for your car. It is the same as with division. Not defined. You can not even try it.
What does it mean "indeterminate"? tl;dr Look up on wikipedia (Indeterminate form).
Name:
Finch2007-10-31 19:02
"Not defined. You can not even try it."
I just brought up a virtual calculator. Divided by 1 by 0. So yes i can try it. I just won't get a definitive answer.
Sorry if I'm not a 'azn' and all but i can actually make sense.
What is 8 divided by apple? It makes no sense, because division by fruit is not defined. Neither is division by zero.
Now, you could make a new division operator and define it for zero, but you'll find that what you get is either boring or contradicts other parts of arithmatic.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 19:15
>>25
So you're not even willing to consider the concept in a way other than you already view it?
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 19:17
0/0 = 1
it's true... most calculators won't agree with this, because they use logarithms when making divisions.
exactly! it is not defined because it cannot be defined and still be practical.
eg. we can say x/0 => 5. now what? what does it tell us?
nothing.
>>26
no, really, you can not even try it. because it is not defined, it is not there, it is not concievable!
yes, you can write it down, but this writing is nonsense.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 19:19
>>29
That's not true, and it's not even defined by convention. Express opinion as opinion and fact as fact, please.
it is not a matter of view. it is a matter of definition.
27/3 = 9 and only 9. not a matter of view either.
before debating investigate the subject, plox
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 19:33
>>32
And, despite the message in >>23, you can't try to view things differently? That's like refusing to work with other number bases.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 19:46
If one divides an object buy .5, one will now have 2 objects.
If one divides an object by one millionth, one will have a million peices.
If one divided something by an even smaller amount, one would have even more objects.
But when you divide something by the smallest increment zero, wouldn't you be able to get infinity parts of the object?
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 19:50
>>34
If one divides an object by -.5, one will now have -2 objects.
If one divides an object by negative one millionth, one will have negative a million pieces.
So if you divide something by zero, wouldn't you be able to get negative infinity parts of the object?
Short answer: read the fucking thread.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 19:51
>>34
Theoratically, yes. But again, you're working with the concept of limits, and not the division itself. Keep trying.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 20:40
Okay, let's do a problem then sir.
Now, you see that fraction down there?
3/0 = ?
You can rewrite it as a mutiplication problem to find what 3/0 is okay?
0x = 3
Newfag will say its 3 but, problem is
3 times 0 = 0
And simple multiplication rule states:
0 times (x) = 0 [x means any number]
Because of that, there is no way you can get a number besides zero, therefore, the function "Does Not Exist" or, "Undefined".
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 20:46
>>37
Your proof has a major flaw. You are treating 0/0 as equal to 1, which would validate multiplying both sides by zero and not messing anything up. but this is not the case. 3/0 = x is very, very hard to deal with, though it's the point of this thread. Sorry to shoot you down like this, but you really need to scrutinize your proofs better to make sure that they're airtight.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 20:49
Bawww :< A for effort though 38.
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 20:54
Does that mean that I win or that you don't buy it?
Name:
Anonymous2007-10-31 21:38
To 40, I don't know, it's my way of seeing it. A part of me is right and a part of you is right. The proof I made isn't really.. a proof, it's a way to show that..
0 * x does not equal 3 [zero times x (a number) always equal zero]
And when you or a calculator try to find it, there's no number that can find any number that can get the answer if you multiply a number by zero. You'll just.. have no answer to that, which can be put as "Undefined" or "Does Not Exist"
I may not be "teh" best at math explanations or being "teh" Win either.
Here's another explanation (or another way to be flamed at, depends) a bit more English oriented but, your call.
Anon Way
Take 3/0 as the example... It's like saying "You have 3 people but I want to split you guys into groups of eh.. GTFO ALL OF YOU" And it's like nothing happens, and they all go back to 4chan. Yay...
Math Way (Calculus)
lim [f(x)-f(c)]/(x-c)
x->c
Given
f(x) = x^2 - 1
c = 2
If you plug in the equation as it is, without simplifying, you'd end up as:
x^2-4/(x-2)
On the denominator (x-2), you attempt to plug in c = 2, 2-2 = 0 and if your numerator is any number but zero... It will turn out "Undefined" (In this case, it's 4/0) And the purpose of finding limits is to know what point y is at when x APPROACHES that number. If this problem can't factor out, then it is truly "Undefined", but in this case, it can be factored.
End up simplified as:
(x + 2)(x - 2) / (x - 2)
The (x - 2)'s cancel out...
and 2 + 2 = 4
***Note : This math section shows a bit more than needed with the 'divide by zero' thing.
I don't quite see what you're saying. 1/x is undefined at x=0, but how is (x^2-4)/(x-2) not "truly undefined" at x=2? The only difference is that the graph of (x^2-4)/(x-2) looks exactly like the graph of (x+2), but there is a "hole" at x=2, where (x^2-4)/(x-2) is undefined.
And you'd think that since this is post #42, I'd have the Answer. Sorry. No dice. Not even 20-sided.
One more thing:
"'You have 3 people but I want to split you guys into groups of eh.. GTFO ALL OF YOU' And it's like nothing happens, and they all go back to 4chan."
ZOMFGWTFLOLROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-01 6:44
>>35
If one divides an object by -.5, one will now have -2 objects.
It is utter nonsense in real world! Yet still, 1/-.5 = -2, indeed.
Why is that? Because in math we use division operation in somewhat different sense than "slicing apples to pieces with a knife". Although the operation resembles the apple slicing when numbers involved are positive.
Introduce yourself to algebra to understand and appreciate operations on sets.
>>33
Which number base you're willing to talk about, and how is "/" defined in it?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-01 17:43
division by zero is a concept, it cannot be numerically expressed.
For example, let's talk chemistry, a reaction occurs in equilibrium (i'm not bothered thinking of chemicals). At equilibrium, there are 0 moles of reactant and 1 moles of each product. This would mean that Kc would be the following equation ((1)(1))/((0)(0)). which goes down to 1/0. Some people would say that this is impossible and leave it in the dirt. However, since we know the context of this sum, we can say that Kc approaches infinity, because all the reactants will eventually react. This can be said for the other way, but i'm not going to say anymore on that than this.
>>43
We have great precedent for negative numbers. Debits, for instance. Hence, you fail.
>>44
When a reaction achieves equilibrium, generally the products don't disappear entirely. There is always some -- however tiny -- amount of reactants being converted into the products again. Hence, you too fail.
>>46
You made the same mistake as a previous post, by treating 0/0 as equal to 1. IF 0/0 would be equal to 1, THEN you could do that. But that's not the case. In fact, here's something that I just thought up:
Division by:
-(x>1) will move a number closer to Zero
-(x<-1) will move a number past Zero to a lesser absolute value than that of the original number
-(0<x<1) will move a number further away from Zero.
-(-1<x<0) will move a number past Zero to a number of greater absolute value than that of the original number.
Basically, the division patterns look like this:
-->(-1)<--(-0+)-->(+1)<--
Zero is neither positive nor negative. What happens to the number it divides?
When in the face of superior intellect, get a wizard.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-02 0:21
>>44
Sorry man, but that violates the laws of conservation of energy. You can't get less stuff out than what you put in. It all had to go somewhere. In other words, when your reactant is gone, you will be left with product, and a probable change in energy, assuming a closed system. The ratio of reactant to product is a quantitative number describing the amount of reactant needed to produce an amount of product. If you had no reactant, then you'd have no product. n/0 in this case doesn't make sense.
But that's what this is about, making sense. The sad fact is there is no known concept in which n/0 makes sense in a physical way, and in a theoretical way it is worked around or avoided as it makes no sense there either. Until some phenomena exists where a ratio to nothing is desirable, it will continue to be avoided.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-02 0:22
>>47
Isn't 0 considered to be positive, by definition?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-02 0:33
>>50
gb2 high school. 0 is neither positive nor negative.
"The non-negative numbers are the real numbers that are not negative (they are positive or zero). The non-positive numbers are the real numbers that are not positive (they are negative or zero)."
Clearly there are three categories: Positive, negative and zero.
>>51
By convention, zero is neither positive nor negative. Similar to how 1 is neither prime nor composite.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-02 5:11
Hmm.Take 5/0.
Let's call the answer c, plus r remainder.
a/b = c + r, abcr : {integers}
a = b*(c+r)
5 = 0*(c+r)
Now, this is a total contradiction. Even if (c+r) is INFINITELY BIG, 0*(c+r) will NEVER equal 5. You can't add 0 to itself infinite times. However 0.000000000(lots of zeroes)000001*(something else) will eventually become 5 if (something else) is big enough.
What about -5/0?
Now, -5/0 = 5/-0 = 5/0.
5 = 0*(c+r). c+r is approaching NEGATIVE infinity as b is approaching zero. (think y=5/x). 0 * negative large number = 5 ? Even more ridiculous.
Hope this sheds some light. Just think about it algebraically and it all makes sense (or in this case... very clearly doesn't make sense, which is what I wanted). Proof by contradiction - we started out assuming (c+r) was an integer, but no such integer solves 5 = 0*(c+r), therefore assumption is false, which is what we were trying to prove.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-02 5:46
>>45
Not always. E.g. ethanol + ethanoic acid = ethyl ethanoate and water. Let's assume that we have 1 mole of ethanol and 1 mole of ethanoic acid. Therefore we will have 1 mole of water and 1 mole of ethyl ethanoate. We'll also assume that this is in a closed system and that the reactant COMPLETELY react , forming the maximum yield of the products. Therefore, we will have the equation of ((1)(1))/((0)(0)). This can happen for some equiibrium equations as the amount of reatants is so small at equilirbium, it cannot be measured, so it is as good as 0.
>>49
Where are you coming from? Moles aren't a measure! Just of quantity. None of the elements were lost, albeit I was being vague about the actual reaction, but that doesn't really matter. The n/0 is when the reaction is at EQUILIBRIUM, not initially. Taking the reaction I used before, I *initially* had 1 mole of each reactant, and they completely reacted to form 1 mole of each products, no reactant left. The numbers for the Kc formula are the concentrations (divided by the volumes, if a gas) of the produts at equilibrium and the concentration of the reactant.
>>55
Third post I've seen that makes the mistake of treating 0/0 as equal to 1. THIS IS NOT TRUE!!! In your formula, "a/b=c+r"
Here's a small fallacy to show what I mean:
Let a=b (given)
a^2=ab (multiply both sides by a)
a^2-b^2=ab-b^2 (subtract b^2 from both sides)
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b) (factor both sides appropriately)
a+b=b (divide both sides by (a-b))
a+a=a (substitute a for every instance of b, since a=b)
2a=a (combine like terms)
1=2 (divide both sides by a)
The problem here is dividing by (a-b). I cannot do this becuase a=b, therefore a-b=0. Since division by zero is undefined and is the topic of this thread, I'm not allowed to take (a-b) out of there, because it would be treating 0/0 as equal to 1. Now then, if everyone would get ALL the errors out of their proofs next time, I'll be much happier.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-03 0:42
BUMP!
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-03 1:39
0/0 = x
0x = 0
x = All numbers (since any number times 0 is 0)
>>59
YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON! TRY READING THE THREAD BEFORE MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE AS AT LEAST 100 OTHER MORONS! 0/0 =/= 1. IF 0/0 = 1, THEN multiplying both sides of the first expression by 0 would yield the second line. Try analyzing your validity before raping your crediblity!
>>65
Why stop there? What about 0*3i? or 0*i for that matter? Why not just all numbers?
>>62
Yes, you did assume that 0/0 = 1. That's what validates multiplying both sides by any other denominator. If 3/4 = x, then multiplying both sides by 4 yields 4*3/4 = 4*x. The fours on the left side CANCEL OUT BECAUSE 4/4 = 1. But the same does not apply to doing this with zero, since 0/0 does not, by convention, equal 1.
lol 69....
Seriously, >>69, thank you for knowing math. We need people like you in this thread.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-04 17:13
Trolls, move to /b/, plox.
There you can easily generate 500 reply threads on moronic subjects like: division by zero, 0.9999... = 1 and matter state of glass.
Those are boring here. Actually, you only troll each other.
Name:
mis4tune2007-11-04 19:26
you know, its pretty easy to divide by 0, you just have to do almost the same thing that people responsible for math/numbers convention do the past xxxx years, in other words dividing by 0 or any other operation between numbers is just like it is because some1 said its logical and prooved it :D, u c there is your chance to get a nobel ^^ gogogo
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-04 19:55
>>72
lrn2spell 'you' and 'see'. Your post was boring.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-04 21:27
I was going to mention limits (especially since differential calculus, arguably, relies on division by zero using them) but I see that's already been covered.
>>76
">Glass is an amorphous solid."
Solids, by definition, hold a shape. Glass flows. Granted, it takes hundreds of years to be significant, but it flows. You lose.
>>77, Glass flows. Stone does not. Stone is solid. Glass is liquid. Solids do not flow. Solids do not even permanently deform except for extremely large forces.
>>78
That article says that pitch is highly viscous fluid. Glass is the same way, except apparently about ten times thicker.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-05 2:25
All solids "flow", dipshit. Glass has a flow time of 10^32 years (not "hundreds") at room temperature, making it a fuck of a lot less viscous than most things people consider solid.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-05 3:19
>>79
just take a little time to research it for a while, it won't take long to see the debunking of the glass liquid myth all over the place.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-05 9:30
Oh well, here we go again. Only in slow motion (/b/ covers "glass" subject on daily basis).
if deviding by 0 had a set answer there would be a wikipedia page on it, no wait there wouldnt be 10000 trolls asking how because it would be easy to look up
and i dont think anyone on 4chan knows enough to actually "invent" how to devide by 0 so we should stop posting in threads like this
in before telling me not to post if i think this way
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-10 4:25
>>91 and i dont think anyone on 4chan knows enough to actually "invent" how to devide by 0 so we should stop posting in threads like this
Division by 0 is perfectly well understood and doesn't require some faggot to come along to "invent" it à la James Anderson's nullity. The only problem with it is middle school kids who don't have a clue.
x/0=1, and this is simply proven by looking at the number line, which is infinite. How many zeros do you see? That's right, there's 1, at the zero point of the line.
Q.E.D. I don't understand where there's all this argument over it.
Name:
CSharp!FFI4Mmahuk2007-11-14 0:43
HAY GUYS, LET'S LEARN HOW LIMITS WORK.
lim(1/x) approaching 0 from the left = -infinity
lim(1/x) approaching 0 from the right = infinity
The limits are different, which means that the limit does not exist. It's a jump discontinuity.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 17:51
I DIVIDED BY ZERO! OH SHI-
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 18:01
why is dividin by zero so intresting?
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-14 18:27
look, the guy who invented zero said:
a*0=a
now, if we didn't know that you can't divide by zero, to find out what result does dividing by zero leads tom you'd say:
a/0=a
now, that's exactly the same as
a/0=a/1
and because of that you can say:
0=1
which is, of course, in most numerical systems and known universes, wrong, so therefore you say you simply can't do it.
There you have an easy explaination, now stop asking why.
{1,0} = Two seperate states
if anything is divided by 0 or is multiplied by 0 it thereby becomes 0. Why? Well, it has to do with Newton's Laws of Motion. An object that is stable can not be moved into motion without a motion first interacting with it, to divide a non entity like 0 you would simply have (0)*.5 if 0/2 is your equation. The reason for this is that everything has a point of origin that it wishes to return to. This is the state of 0. To divide a state of origin is to destroy it altogether which is impossible as it will simply change form and continue on from there as another state of 0. So, realistically, just keep doing what you believe to be retarded and you will end up just as intelligent. Mark my words, but forget them well, it will work much better to the extension of my aforementioned words. >>101 0=1
0 can not equal 1 because the equation is too simply incorrect due to the nature of both seperate states being fused as one state.
{0=1,1=0} = One solid state, equality which is incorrect due to two seperate icons representing two seperate sets of measurement. 0 is the iconic representation of intangible potentiality existing within everything which is the source of faith, imagination, belief, and God.
Yeah, you guys have no sense of etymology or symbolism whatsoever. Good luck with your meaningless lives. Though I guess to have a meaningless life isn't so meaningless to the meaningless. Pff, whatever that means.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-08 13:26
I was always told that zero isn't really a number and so you can't divide by it.
Well, it's conventionally not viewed as a "counting number", nor is it accommodated for in Peano's axioms. In Professor Scholl's esteemed estimation, however, it should always be included. I'm inclined to agree.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-09 7:18
Bitches don't know bout my complex plane union infinity.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-09 12:27
All you need to do is define a=1/0 and everything else follows (0=0/0, 2a=2/0, etc.). Just like when we define i^2=-1.
>>112
You may be surprised to learn that you are wrong. 0 is a member of the set of natural numbers.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-10 23:23
>>115
no, you are thinking of the set of whole numbers, which includes the natural numbers.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-11 2:40
The distinction between whole and natural numbers is high school stuff. the natural numbers are defined to include or exclude zero whenever convenient, and there's an end to it. But all the trolls above knew this.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-11 18:46
>>116-117
The natural numbers always include 0, as they are defined as being the set of non-negative integers.
The whole numbers may or may not, as they don't have a fixed definition and are variously used to mean all non-negative integers (including 0), all integers greater than 0, or all integers.
Basically, both of you are ignorant dickwads.
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-11 23:08
>>118
You are mistaken. The natural numbers are the positive integers. The whole numbers do have a fixed definition, being the non-negative integers. The exception is in Belgium. Are you a Flemming or a Walloon? When will you guys join the world standard?
Name:
Anonymous2008-06-11 23:11
>>117
This is correct. I have had several textbooks & teachers using "natural numbers" as zero inclusive, & slightly more using zero exclusive. My low-level mathematical logic textbook directly states that the inclusion of zero is based upon convenience rather than a strict definition, as 117 stated. Actually, I think it's more of an inconvenience because N has to be "defined" again & again as I progress through mathematics, but both definitions do come up in different instances.
Hey, but even though infinity has no determinate value, any value divided by 0 = 0, THEREFORE
4/0 -> infinty
4 is therefore infinity multiplied by zero (following basic algebraic steps)
Any value multiplied by zero is zero, irrespective of how large the value is, so even an infinite value multiplied by zero equals zero.
THEREFORE..
Algebra fails at life.
Name:
God2010-10-13 17:07
You people have it backwards. Numbers like 1, 2, 3, 4 are bigger than infinity. Infinity exists in between the numbers, and each new number is just a repeat of 0 and 1.
Two, Three, Four, are just 0sub1 0sub2 0sub3
All numbers are divided from 0 because its the same thing as 1, just in a different space.
Now stfu
Name:
Anonymous2010-10-13 19:14
ITT: People who are comparing finite with infinite number systems, a fundamental error perpetrated by amateurs and morons alike.
Name:
Anonymous2010-10-13 19:18
>126
you mean that the lim. as x approches 0 for the function (sin(x))/X) equals 1.
squeeze theorem.
f(1) is still indeterminate.
Name:
Anonymous2011-01-07 13:53
The definition of infinite is innumerable, how can you have something bigger than infinity, that would just be more infinity.
Ps don't divide by 0 on your phone calculator. Long story short, up for attempted murder for turning a phone into an explosive device. It's only attempted murder because it was a sony x10, if I had a HTC desire i'm sure i'd be the greatest mass murderer in australian history