>>11615793I specifically described the fraction in terms of multiplication in order to clarify the issue. "to get 0" simply refers to the numerator.
>>11616155That's what I was trying to say. I guess now that I think more about it, 0/0 is indeed undefined since it would be a relation mapped to an uncountable set. I thought it was defined because we knew anything would do.
Why is it that you can convert indeterminate forms of limits to a solution through factorization or L’Hôpital's rule though? That seems to imply there's something defined after all. Sorry if this question is really retarded. I'm guessing it has specifically to do with it being a limit.
