>>11459913it just proves that, if zero is a number, simple multiplication isn't sufficient to describe its multiplicative behavior.
Rather than saying 1*0=0, you'd need some function f(1) where f(1)/0=1. Likewise, f(2)/0=2, f(3)/0=3, ...f(n)/0=n
Thus, the proper way to write division by zero would be
>1*0=0+f(1)>2*0=0+f(2)and since f(1) != f(2), 1 != 2.
Anything less would be a waste of time.
