Ask P4T0U (science & maths)

[Leandro]

well sorry If you misunderstood...there is no link between the two sentences.

No misunderstanding. Unless you happen to disagree with 10000 years of mathematics.

Let n be an arbitrary real number. Then, as you postulated:
n/0 = ∞.

Let m be another real number. Then 'obviously':
m/0 = ∞.

Wait... so, that obviously means n = m... all numbers are equal!

Infinity is a bitch. Division by zero IS undefined on the field of real numbers, no easy way around it, period.

about limits.... the limit as x approches the infinity of b/x when b is a constant = 0 because the number tends to be smaller. If the limit as x approches 0 of b/x will give you an undefined value because it will have 2 values. but you can evaluate the left side and the right side separately so the answer could be -∞ or ∞ depending on the side you choose

Hell no, dear, not talking about one-sided limits, I'm not picky. The problem lies when we define a limit, as follows:

Given f:R -> R and real-valued constants L and c,

lim f(x) = L
x -> c

If, and only if, for every real &#949; > 0 there exists &#948; > 0 such that for every x where 0 < |x - c| < &#948;, it holds that |f(x) - L| < &#949;.

Well, news flash for you: infinity is not a real-valued constant. Therefore it cannot be a limit. When we state that a limit 'is infinity', plus or minus, I don't care, we're making an informal assessment that the limit does not exist as the absolute value of the function increases without bound when approaching c.

 

[marfal66]

dude

 

[Flappy]

Let n be an arbitrary real number. Then, as you postulated:
n/0 = &#8734;.

Let m be another real number. Then 'obviously':
m/0 = &#8734;.

Wait... so, that obviously means n = m... all numbers are equal!

I like that one. Going to keep that in mind to impose with my physics/math friends (being more of a history/language guy myself)

 

[P4T0U]

No misunderstanding. Unless you happen to disagree with 10000 years of mathematics.

Let n be an arbitrary real number. Then, as you postulated:
n/0 = &#8734;.

Let m be another real number. Then 'obviously':
m/0 = &#8734;.

Wait... so, that obviously means n = m... all numbers are equal!

Infinity is a bitch. Division by zero IS undefined on the field of real numbers, no easy way around it, period.



Hell no, dear, not talking about one-sided limits, I'm not picky. The problem lies when we define a limit, as follows:

Given f:R -> R and real-valued constants L and c,

lim f(x) = L
x -> c

If, and only if, for every real &#949; > 0 there exists &#948; > 0 such that for every x where 0 < |x - c| < &#948;, it holds that |f(x) - L| < &#949;.

Well, news flash for you: infinity is not a real-valued constant. Therefore it cannot be a limit. When we state that a limit 'is infinity', plus or minus, I don't care, we're making an informal assessment that the limit does not exist as the absolute value of the function increases without bound when approaching c.

Well my calculator gives me: |1/0| = &#8734;... I read about it on wiki and it depends on people...

Most calculators will either return an error or state that 1/0 is undefined, however some TI graphing calculators will evaluate (1/0)² to &#8734;. (which is the same)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero

It's damn hard to understand when you have french classes... I agree with you but I'm still not convinced about the non-existence of x tending to infinite as it's useful to find our horizontal asymptotes.

 

[snowy]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbecue_sauce
It's damn hard to understand when you have french classes... I agree with you but I'm still not convinced about the non-existence of x tending to infinite as it's useful to find our horizontal asymptotes.

???

 

[Lakebodom666]

Let n be an arbitrary real number. Then, as you postulated:
n/0 = &#8734;.

Let m be another real number. Then 'obviously':
m/0 = &#8734;.

Wait... so, that obviously means n = m... all numbers are equal!

Thats what i was trying to explain, the numbers are not equal as such it is that u end up dividing by/subracting larger and larger number resulting in smaller and smaller fractions, but of course you cannot reach 0 by division.

 

[Ensi]

BUT HOW DO I DIVIDE BY ZERO IF IT AIN'T POSSIBLE?

 

[kilon]

When you divine 0 to be another number, it's possible.
Just like you can say x=3, you can also say 0=5. It's not commonly accepted, but theoretically you can.

And there is some other reason but that's pretty boring. (to me at least)

 

[innuenDO]

So why is 5*0 defined 5/0 not?

 

[kilon]

Because you can have 5 times 0 apples but you can't have 5 apples and share that with 0 people (including yourself). The apples can't go anywhere so they say it's not devined.

This is the easiest explanation I think.

 

[children of COB]

^Yep it is.

No misunderstanding. Unless you happen to disagree with 10000 years of mathematics.

Let n be an arbitrary real number. Then, as you postulated:
n/0 = &#8734;.

Let m be another real number. Then 'obviously':
m/0 = &#8734;.

Wait... so, that obviously means n = m... all numbers are equal!

Infinity is a bitch. Division by zero IS undefined on the field of real numbers, no easy way around it, period.



Hell no, dear, not talking about one-sided limits, I'm not picky. The problem lies when we define a limit, as follows:

Given f:R -> R and real-valued constants L and c,

lim f(x) = L
x -> c

If, and only if, for every real &#949; > 0 there exists &#948; > 0 such that for every x where 0 < |x - c| < &#948;, it holds that |f(x) - L| < &#949;.

Well, news flash for you: infinity is not a real-valued constant. Therefore it cannot be a limit. When we state that a limit 'is infinity', plus or minus, I don't care, we're making an informal assessment that the limit does not exist as the absolute value of the function increases without bound when approaching c.

Damn, I hadn't seen this stuff in a year, I kinda miss maths But hating physics as much as I hate them I had nothing to do in engineering.

When you divine 0 to be another number, it's possible.
Just like you can say x=3, you can also say 0=5. It's not commonly accepted, but theoretically you can.

And there is some other reason but that's pretty boring. (to me at least)

Wat?

 

[vikk]

what`s the airspeed of an african Unladen Swallow?

 

[kilon]

what`s the airspeed of an african Unladen Swallow?

Monty Python!!!!!
I'll leave the answer to that to those who may not know this (shame on you)

^Yep it is.



Damn, I hadn't seen this stuff in a year, I kinda miss maths But hating physics as much as I hate them I had nothing to do in engineering.



Wat?

Over the years people gave names to things. A pie is called a pie, a house is called a house and the number 0 is called 0.
But if you give it another name, simply because you say so, it's true.
If I call a pie a house and say to you that that's the truth, you may agree.
In the same way, I can say 0 is called 3.
And when you maintain the rule that you can divide by 3, you can divide by 0.

Honestly, I suck at explaining things especially as vague as this. So if you don't understand, don't look at me!

 

[children of COB]

No, don't worry, now you made it clear

 

[Leandro]

Well my calculator gives me: |1/0| = &#8734;... I read about it on wiki and it depends on people...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero

It's damn hard to understand when you have french classes... I agree with you but I'm still not convinced about the non-existence of x tending to infinite as it's useful to find our horizontal asymptotes.

Then your calculator is wrong. And it doesn't depend either, as long as you're talking real (or complex, quaternion, octonion or sedenion, but you get the point) numbers, division by zero is undefined. There are number systems that define it, usually involving some compactification, but they're mostly useless.

 

[innuenDO]

Because you can have 5 times 0 apples but you can't have 5 apples and share that with 0 people (including yourself). The apples can't go anywhere so they say it's not devined.

This is the easiest explanation I think.

So you can have five times nothing? That doesnt make sense.

If you share your 5 apples. No one would get one so division by 0 is 0.

 

[children of COB]

There's no no one to get those apples. 0 means nothing, you can't give the apples to nothing. And yes you can have 5 times nothing. In fact nothin is the only thing you can have as many times as you want, because it's nothing so it' doesn't take anything to have it. I know it sounds reeeeeeeeally weird and that I may not be the best explaining myself, but it is like that.

 

[vikk]

if you have 5 apples in your hand, but you have 0 friends to give them. so in the end you still have 5 apples, right?

 

[P4T0U]

It's ok I agree with you guys... you look like you wanna destroy the earth...

 

[children of COB]

^Nah, or maybe yes?

^^Nope, that'd be 6 (you + your 5 friends), but dividing the 5 apples by 0 would mean dividing them between no on. Not even the owner of the apples. Not that the 6 or 7 or whatever counts, but the fact that there's no one (0) to take those aples. You cant divide them between them because there's no them or I or whatever.