HOW TO DIVIDE BY ZERO?!

I RLY WANNA KNOW

>>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.

Oh well, here we go again. Only in slow motion (/b/ covers "glass" subject on daily basis).

>>79
lol, you're kidding right?

How many times did I divide my pie to share with the others 0.
Does that mean I have infinite pie?? NOPE

I have Algebra 1 skills.
Most of you are stupid.

"http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7655/pleaseandthankyouhe7.png"

Link because I do not know if this board supports Html.

>>84
you have infinitely many pieces of pie

>>84
The other 0 plus one (yourself) equals one, so you divided by one. learn2math

I can resolve this.

http://www.javierzanetti.net/Handoyo/Pictures/070319%20Special%20Olympics.jpg

>>88
That picture stopped being funny in 1999. gb2myspace.

>>88
Fine.  I'll stop.  I'm done here.

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

>>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=infinity
(draw it on a graph youl see)

x/0=infinity
(draw it on a graph youl see)

>>93-94
DIE. IN. A. FIRE.

umm............ I just had sex with a chicken.......

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.

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.

I DIVIDED BY ZERO! OH SHI-

why is dividin by zero so intresting?

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.

Thread amuses me

"0" is not a number

first of all check this out:

{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.

I was always told that zero isn't really a number and so you can't divide by it.

If 0 = nothing 
1-1 = nothing = 0

a/(1-1)= a   = x 
       (1-1)

x = WTF?!

>>105

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.

Bitches don't know bout my complex plane union infinity.

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.

>>109
What's 0*a?

>>105
>>107
0 IS a natural number

>>111
smallest natural is 1

Math is a broken science, it has to rely on dozens of workarounds to work
I wonder why nobody comes up with a better math

>>110
x

>>112
You may be surprised to learn that you are wrong. 0 is a member of the set of natural numbers.

>>115
no, you are thinking of the set of whole numbers, which includes the natural numbers.

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.

>>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.

>>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?

>>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.