/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11462039

11KiB, 683x384, untitled (28).png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

0/0 is 0. Prove it false

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 05:59:03 2020 No.11462039 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11462064 >>11462141 >>11463390 >>11463427 >>11463457 >>11463491 >>11463556 >>11463615 >>11464081

I am almost certain 0/0 is 0, because of this image. No, I am not retarded, and yes I do know about limits. The thing about 0/0 limits is they don't include the fact that its (0/0)*0

My main argument is that ~by definition~ division is "what times the denominator is the numerator", its the inverse of multiplication. Because of this, no matter what number you say 0/0 is its always multiplied by 0 and thus becomes 0.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:02:41 No.11462048 Report

Quoted By: >>11462141 >>11462192

>I am almost certain 0/0 is 0, because of this image.
In which wheel?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:03:14 No.11462049 Report

Quoted By: >>11462066

Is that another name for a ring?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:03:51 No.11462053 Report

Quoted By:

Dare to resist, don't bump shit threads!

(except this post explaining to dare to resist to bump shit threads)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:06:12 No.11462059 Report

Quoted By:

I don't want bumps i want answers

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:08:04 No.11462064 Report

Quoted By:

>>11462039
>by definition
>inverses
no the problem is that you people don't know a single thing about abstract algebra. People long before you have long since made sense of how and why division is possible, under what circumstances, etc etc.. I don't really have much else to tell except to read more ring theory

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:08:29 No.11462066 Report

Quoted By:

>>11462049
>Is that another name for a ring?
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:08:59 No.11462067 Report

Quoted By: >>11462072

I may be a dumbass, but aren't rings just sets with thingies you can do on them?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:10:28 No.11462071 Report

Quoted By:

On the members of the set that is

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:10:40 No.11462072 Report

Quoted By:

>>11462067
Yes but they admit a lot more complicated behavior just by having simple structure on them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:12:47 No.11462078 Report

Quoted By: >>11462092

Welp i believe you went above my vocab level. I am looking for a proof by contradiction, because i am too stupid to understand anything else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:17:49 No.11462092 Report

Quoted By: >>11462095

>>11462078
Suppose we have a nonzero division ring or field. Suppose 0/0 is well defined and it equals 0. In general, when we have x = 0/0 (provided you accept basic facts about fields and rings), we say x is any number such that $x \cdot 0 = 0$ . However, we see every such x satisfies this relationship, and so we get that every element is zero. However, we supposed that the ring was nonzero to begin with. Contradiction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:19:45 No.11462095 Report

Quoted By: >>11462107

>>11462092
That is exactly my point, that since x is any number such that x * 0 = 0, therefore (0/0)*0=0

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:20:32 No.11462097 Report

Quoted By: >>11462110

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxpowBoPieQ

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:21:12 No.11462099 Report

Quoted By: >>11462107

Why did we suppose the ring was nonzero?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:26:59 No.11462107 Report

Quoted By: >>11462121

>>11462095
Not really. This shows that 0/0 isn't a well defined number since it would have to be equal to everything in the ring.
>>11462099
There are some technical reasons, but it basically comes down to the core reason that $1 \neq 0$ in meaningful contexts. These two elements are considered distinct since if they are not, everything generally ends up being nothing but 0. That is to say, you could give 0/0 some form, but it's sort of a garbled mess that doesn't admit anything worth study.
So we keep 1 and 0, which are the multiplicative and additive identities, separate from our considerations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:28:24 No.11462110 Report

Quoted By:

>>11462097
anon isn't going to understand any nuances of quotient and mapping properties if he can't see why 0/0 isn't well defined in such a context

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:32:24 No.11462121 Report

Quoted By: >>11462126

>>11462107
Why wouldn't they be considered distinct? I don't understand what you mean/

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:35:29 No.11462126 Report

Quoted By:

>>11462121
We supposed the ring is nonzero because then we have an element, at least a single element, that is nonzero. This means we have to consider a 0, which is our additive identity, and a 1, which is our multiplicative identity, and of course all sums of these elements, all multiples of the sums, all sums of the multiples, etc etc. So by supposing we have a nonzero ring, we encounter the first nontrivial case when examining a set of numbers. Namely, the integers are probably the most natural commutative ring to first thing about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:38:54 No.11462134 Report

Quoted By: >>11462149

I still don't see what the problem with multiplying an indeterminate value that could equal any number in the set by 0 to make it so that it can only be 0 causes a problem

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO wheels.png, 4KiB, 260x260

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:40:54 No.11462141 Report

Quoted By: >>11462192 >>11463445

>>11462048
>In which wheel?
>>11462039
Wheel Theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory
Anton Setzer - Wheels
http://www.cs.swan.ac.uk/~csetzer/articles/wheel.pdf
Jesper Carlstrom - Wheels: On Division by Zero
http://www2.math.su.se/reports/2001/11/2001-11.pdf

wheels bro, keep on rollin'

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:42:57 No.11462149 Report

Quoted By: >>11462162

>>11462134
because 0/0 is clearly not well defined. If we follow the contradictory argument, it is every arbitrary element in the field. What this means is one of two things
1) 0/0, which we assumed is an element, is actually a set of unique elements that aren't zero. Contradiction (a type theoretic argument would probably be better here)
2) every element in the ring satisfies x * 0 = 0 by definition of 0, so every element in the ring is 0, but we assumed otherwise. Contradiction

Both of these are consequences of the fact 0/0 isn't well defined.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 06:47:47 No.11462162 Report

Quoted By: >>11462210

>>11462149

its not just division, it is also multiplication by 0

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1566947910301.png, 284KiB, 315x407

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 07:05:23 No.11462192 Report

Quoted By:

>>11462048
>>11462141
There are wheels within wheels in this village, and fires within fires!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 07:22:25 No.11462210 Report

Quoted By:

>>11462162
No, this is specifically division by zero. Multiplication by zero is well defined.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 07:40:40 No.11462256 Report

Quoted By: >>11463441

who will save /sci/ from this daunting unanswered question?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 17:09:58 No.11463390 Report

Quoted By:

>>11462039
0/0 generates a completely new set of reals. Any system by which 0/0 is allowed is, by necessity, 2 dimensional.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO foo.jpg, 24KiB, 474x711

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 17:19:59 No.11463427 Report

Quoted By:

>>11462039
Lmao. OP is retarded. What did you prove from the image. Nothing. You in essence just multiplied both sides by zero. The result nothing.

Let's start with your argument
0*0=0
Now divide both sides by zero
0*0/0=0/0
0*(0/0)=(0/0)
Well..... we're back to square on. The LHS and RHS are not defined. Hence your argument is false. Try again next time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 17:24:15 No.11463441 Report

Quoted By:

>>11462256
No one. Because the argument is fallacious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 17:25:01 No.11463445 Report

Quoted By: >>11463855

>>11462141
Wheel theory doesn't solve shit, that stupid cross thing is just as much of a dead end as 0 and infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 17:27:43 No.11463457 Report

Quoted By:

>>11462039
division is the inverse of multiplication, and there is no unique inverse for zero because x * 0 = 0 for all x. at worst you can argue that it's multivalued, at best you can define something like a projective coordinate system and introduce a point at infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 17:41:14 No.11463491 Report

Quoted By:

>>11462039
OP, if you're a brainlet (which at this point I think you're) and still can't comprehend the veracity of your claims, there's an easier way to understand.

Consider the ratio 1/x
What happens if we decrease x?
It becomes very large
Ex 1/0.1=10, 1/0.01 = 100, 1/0.0001 = 10000 and so on

now consider the ratio x/1 or just x.
What happens if we decrease x? It gets closer to 0.
Now multiplying both ratios seem to give us some intermediate answer.
Hence there's no specific number that can satisfy 0/0.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 18:06:14 No.11463556 Report

Quoted By:

>>11462039
I'm starting to think that for f(x)=[0/0]*n, 0/0=1, while for f(x)=[0/0]+n, 0/0=0
Does that even make sense? A number that's 0 under addition, and 1 under multiplication?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 18:25:38 No.11463615 Report

Quoted By:

>>11462039
0*1/0 = 0, 1=0

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO the-ones-who-say.jpg, 89KiB, 700x662

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 20:14:43 No.11463855 Report

Quoted By: >>11464153

>>11463445
>Wheel theory doesn't solve shit
>that stupid cross thing is just as much of a dead end as 0 and infinity
Well, it sounds like someone knows less about wheel theory than wheel theory knows about him! Here's a little tip, kid: you can never hope to defeat your enemies without knowing how they think. And by the time you know enough wheel theory to fight the wheel theoretic, it's already too late. You're already a wheel theorist!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 21:46:51 No.11464081 Report

Quoted By: >>11464103

>>11462039
>"what times the denominator is the numerator", its the inverse of multiplication. Because of this, no matter what number you say 0/0 is its always multiplied by 0 and thus becomes 0.
But 0 times 1 is also 0, and 0 times 2, 3, 4, etc

Based retard OP trying to redefine basic math

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 21:56:03 No.11464103 Report

Quoted By:

>>11464081
>Based retard OP trying to redefine basic math
based retard defies the notion of algebraic structure

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 12 Mar 2020 22:13:26 No.11464153 Report

Quoted By:

>>11463855
not an argument chap

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches