/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11550517

148KiB, 226x300, image0.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

0/0 is 0

anonymous Fri 10 Apr 07:16:34 2020 No.11550517 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11550533 >>11550550 >>11550560 >>11550561 >>11550590 >>11550631 >>11550690 >>11550858 >>11550861

Disprove this without using the rings or limits.

My logic is that since division is the inverse of multiplication, and 0*0=0, that means that no matter what 0/0 equals, i can make it (0/0)*0, and this just puts us back at where we started making it 0.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:22:16 No.11550528 Report

Quoted By: >>11550533 >>11550538

People like you are why the world was hesitant to embrace the concept of 0.

There's no reason to disprove it. In how many ways can you divide a set of 0 items into 0 sets. You could say 0, 9 or 8000. Turning the question into a purely math based one doesn't make it any less nonsensical. That is the question you have set out to have disproved.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:25:00 No.11550533 Report

Quoted By: >>11550653 >>11551150

>>11550517
>>11550528

0 isn't a real number. You can't have 0 of something. 0 is a tool we use to do math, it isn't real.

anonymous

anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:26:48 No.11550538 Report

Quoted By: >>11550557

>>11550528

Its not just division though, its also multiplication which is my point. Any of the numbers you can say it could be times 0 are always 0, no matter what.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:33:35 No.11550550 Report

Quoted By: >>11550551

>>11550517
a*b= c =====> a = c/b

0*0 = 0 =====> 0 = 0/0
4*0 = 0 =====> 4 = 0/0
-24*0 = 0 =====> -24 = 0/0
0 ? -24 ? -4

Whenever you divide anything by 0, it is undefined. 0/0 is still undefined. When you are evaluating the limit of some function divided by another function, 0/0 is an indeterminate form where the limit can't be determined just by comparing the limit of the functions in both numerator and denominator; the value of the limit will be determined on a case by case situaition. Eg lim x=>0 (2x^2/x^2) = 0/0 = 2, but
lim x=>0 (-50x^4/10x^4)= 0/0=-5

anonymous

anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:35:32 No.11550551 Report

Quoted By: >>11550556 >>11550563

>>11550550

this is assuming that 0/0 equals one, which as i just said it does not.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:37:41 No.11550556 Report

Quoted By: >>11550563

>>11550551
>this is assuming that 0/0 equals one, which as i just said it does not
What the actual fuck are you talking about?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:38:33 No.11550557 Report

Quoted By: >>11550567

>>11550538
Because multiplication is essentially just fancy counting. If you have 7 sets of 0 things how many things do you have? 0. Algebra is very geometric. Multiplication is moving "forward" while division is moving
"backwards". You can tell how many sets of 0 you have with multiplication, in this case 7 but with division the answer can literally be anything. That's why they tell you not to do it, because 0/0 can actually be anything and makes no sense in the traditional geometric representation of algebra.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:40:55 No.11550560 Report

Quoted By:

>>11550517
>What is nullification?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:40:55 No.11550561 Report

Quoted By: >>11550567

>>11550517
Suppose 0/0 = 0.
Multiply both sides by 0.
0 = 0*0
0 = 0
Contradiction.

anonymous

anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:42:03 No.11550563 Report

Quoted By:

>>11550551
>>11550556

I am an idiot, i meant 0/0 equals 0

anonymous

anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:43:44 No.11550567 Report

Quoted By:

>>11550557

Once again, its not just division. There is also multiplication by 0.

>>11550561

wut

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:47:40 No.11550577 Report

Quoted By: >>11550583

(0/0)^0 is 1

anonymous

anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:50:22 No.11550583 Report

Quoted By: >>11550595

>>11550577

False, 0^0 is not 1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:57:23 No.11550590 Report

Quoted By:

>>11550517
>since division is the inverse of multiplication
lol you should take a math course beyond algebra II

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 07:59:34 No.11550595 Report

Quoted By: >>11550598

>>11550583
0^1 has to be one in this context, therefore it is 1. Consider if you have one not-thing that has nothing, then how many do you have? 1.

anonymous

anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 08:04:29 No.11550598 Report

Quoted By: >>11550615 >>11551155

>>11550595

(0^0^0)=(0^0)^0=1^0=1
(0^0^0)=(0^(0^0))=0^1=0

contradiction

anonymous

anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 08:06:58 No.11550603 Report

Quoted By:

Wait are you trying to say that 0^1 is 1?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 08:14:47 No.11550615 Report

Quoted By: >>11550621

>>11550598
No it's a great viewpoint on that. So now this not-thing is raised to the power of a not-thing that has nothing.Think of it as a way that you can count how many empty cells you have in a bank of data. This can be useful when concluding how much of these that you have.

anonymous

anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 08:18:39 No.11550621 Report

Quoted By: >>11550673

>>11550615

Its the same as 0/0, which is very easy to prove as not being 1. 0^0=0^-1*0^1=0/0

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 08:22:56 No.11550631 Report

Quoted By: >>11550636

>>11550517
>division is the inverse of multiplication
and you can't invert multiplication by 0

anonymous

anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 08:25:02 No.11550636 Report

Quoted By:

>>11550631
You can, but it doesnt give you a meaningful answer because 0 destroys information. However, multiplying it by 0 which you are forced to do because there is a 0 on top makes it so any answer (which remember, the answer times 0 is 0) times 0 becomes 0

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 08:29:37 No.11550653 Report

Quoted By:

>>11550533
0,999... is also not real btw, that's why the 0,999... = 1 thing is retarded.

anonymous

anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 08:31:38 No.11550656 Report

Quoted By: >>11550663

I agree the 0.999 repeating thing is stupid because you can easily prove it with simple algebra.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 08:36:42 No.11550663 Report

Quoted By: >>11550681

>>11550656
You can't count to infinite, nor find infinite numbers in nature. Only 1 is a unit and decimals are a certain number of 1 off-scale.
For instance 0,95 grams is just 950 milligrams, so 950 units of 1 of something. You can go smaller. But
0,999... gramms makes no sense, because it can't exist, it's not a number, just a fancy concept to jerk over, but it does not exist, ne found or be counted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 08:40:43 No.11550673 Report

Quoted By: >>11550681

>>11550621
Depends on your application, as stated. Yes, you could go ahead and split those out as 0^-1^1(0^0^1) and get a big nasty zero or you can make it 0^0^1. Depends on what you are looking for. There is a reason why people are still on the fence about this 0^0 nonsense.

anonymous

anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 08:43:18 No.11550681 Report

Quoted By: >>11550843

>>11550663
Dont cross over the goddamn 0.999 repeating threads, i dont want to hear it.

>>11550673
The bottom line is that 0^0 is just as fucky as 0/0, in fact i would go as far to say it is the exact same as 0/0.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 08:50:42 No.11550690 Report

Quoted By: >>11550695

>>11550517
>9 ÷ 3 = 3
>9 ÷ 3 = 9 - 3 - 3
>9 = (9 - 3 - 3) * 3
>9 = (9 - 3 - 3) + (9 - 3 - 3) + (9 - 3 - 3)
>9 = k, 3 = u
>k = (k - u - u) + (k - u - u) + (k - u - u)
>k = k + k + k - u - u - u - u - u - u
>k = 3k - 6u
>2k = 6u
>2 = n, 6 = m
>k(u) = (m/n)*u

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 08:53:39 No.11550695 Report

Quoted By:

>>11550690
I may be an idiot but i am pretty sure this doesnt break anything. You just plug in 0 everywhere. Also, let me reiterate, it is not just division. It is also multiplicaation

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 11:31:23 No.11550843 Report

Quoted By:

>>11550681
Shut up fagg.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 11:49:30 No.11550858 Report

Quoted By:

>>11550517
0/0 = 0 * 1/0 by definition of division. what is 1/0 ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 11:56:12 No.11550861 Report

Quoted By:

>>11550517
a purely algebraic proof. Division by an element is another way of saying multiplication by the inverse of said element. The inverse of a rational a is defined as the (unique) rational b such that a*b = 1. It may not exists. By definition, 0 is the (unique) neutral element for the addition of rational numbers. In other words, by definition, we have for any rational a that a + 0 = a. Let's assume that there exists a multiplicative inverse of 0 among the rational, that is, by definition, a rational a such that a*0 = 1. Note that a + 0 = a by definition, and multiplying each side by a, we get a^2 + 1 = a^2. Subtracting a^2 on each side, we obtain 1=0, which is absurd. Hence, 0 has no inverse, so you cannot define division by 0 the usual way. In particular, there is no meaning to 0/0.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 12:10:25 No.11550892 Report

Quoted By:

>it's another episode of /sci/ doesn't understand basic abstract algebra

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 14:35:58 No.11551150 Report

Quoted By:

>>11550533

Are you literally fucking retarded

Obviously you can have 0 of something, that just means you have none of it. How is that a difficult concept to grasp? For example I have no pet bird, therefore the amount of pet birds I have is 0. I have 0 pet birds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 14:38:46 No.11551155 Report

Quoted By:

>>11550598

Do you not understand power laws?

a^b^c = a^(b^c) ? (a^b)^c

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 10 Apr 2020 14:47:59 No.11551178 Report

Quoted By:

0 fits into 0 exactly once, so 0 equals 1.

However, 0 can fit into 0 infinite times, since you can stuff an infinite amount of 0's into 0.

Thus, 1 = Infinity.

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