/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11730279

215KiB, 800x2560, yes.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

0/0 is 0 and so is 1/0

Anonymous Fri 29 May 15:57:36 2020 No.11730279 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11730671 >>11731259 >>11731326 >>11731404 >>11731419

Disprove me via contradiction without using limits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 16:22:18 No.11730330 Report

Quoted By: >>11731196

incels never have sex, (you) never have sex, therefore you are an incel

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Capture.png, 84KiB, 1344x1518

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 16:32:00 No.11730349 Report

Quoted By: >>11730357

We've already had this thread, it's undefined
MODS

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 16:35:59 No.11730357 Report

Quoted By: >>11730689 >>11731326

>>11730349
You're a jackass, the thread never reached a conclusion. Is 0*undefined 0????

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 18:30:23 No.11730671 Report

Quoted By: >>11730699

>>11730279
0 = 0*2
so
0/0 = 2
therefore
0 = 2

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 18:35:05 No.11730689 Report

Quoted By:

>>11730357
No, 0 * undefined is NaN.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 18:36:15 No.11730699 Report

Quoted By: >>11730742

>>11730671
My proof shows that any number other then 0 causes contradictions. It's a proof by contradiction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 18:44:39 No.11730742 Report

Quoted By: >>11730793

>>11730699
Your image is incoherent garbage. No one could ever prove you wrong because you're not even wrong. You haven't fucking said anything.

8/10 bait; I couldn't resist

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 18:52:01 No.11730793 Report

Quoted By:

>>11730742
How is it wrong? Where is it incoherent? It seems pretty coherent and sensicle to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 20:24:02 No.11731196 Report

Quoted By:

>>11730330
Your statement is not logically correct. Incels never have sex does not imply that all people who never have sex are incells and OP could be such a person. You should have stated it in the following way:
People who never have sex are incels. (You) never have sex. Therefore you are an incel.
Now gtfo brainlet.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 20:38:54 No.11731259 Report

Quoted By: >>11731289 >>11731359

>>11730279
There are a lot of problems with your proof, The first immediate problem is that you say 0 * (1 / 0) = 0 / 0, but neither of these things are defined. Furthermore, you distribute 1 / 0 across (0 + 0), but this only works for things inside a relevant ring structure (we can assume these numbers live in the real field), but 1 / 0 is explicitly not in the field.
So you're already assuming you can do arithmetic with this form when you haven't shown it's well defined nor verified it upholds any of the ring properties.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 20:46:25 No.11731289 Report

Quoted By:

>>11731259
When I say neither is defined, I mean to say that we can’t do these sorts of equalities on these undefined quantities. You must give a reasonable definition for 0/0 and show that such a definition is consistent with ring and field structure (ie, that it is well defined and nothing breaks). Otherwise, you’re trying to resolve equality between indeterminate forms and undefined quantities, which we have no way of tackling.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 20:56:34 No.11731326 Report

Quoted By: >>11731359

>>11730357
>>11730279
You're a lying retard. The conclusion reached was that your little algebraic experiment is logically consistent and can thus not be disproven, however it was also concluded that this experiment is not practical at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 21:04:30 No.11731359 Report

Quoted By: >>11731375 >>11731443

>>11731326
So the conclusion was i am correct, but its not helpful?
>>11731259
I don't need to take the 0 out of 0/0, i could have just done (0+0)/0 and done the replacement thing

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 21:08:02 No.11731375 Report

Quoted By:

>>11731359
Exactly, that was the conclusion. You're free to explore such ideas and it may lead to stuff like imaginary numbers, but most of the time it turns out to not have much use at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 21:13:58 No.11731404 Report

Quoted By:

>>11730279
how can you disprove a definition ?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 21:18:03 No.11731419 Report

Quoted By:

>>11730279
Here it goes, $a/b$ is by definition $ab^{-1}$ , therefore $0/0 = 0 \cdot 0^{-1}$ so you just need to find $0^{-1}$ . $0^{-1}$ it is defined as the *unique* number $x$ such that $0 \cdot x = 1$ ; but wait! For all $x\in\mathbb{R}$ it happens that $0\cdot x = 0$ therefore $0^{-1}$ doesn't exist. Huh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 21:23:09 No.11731443 Report

Quoted By: >>11731527

>>11731359
Not really, since you're assuming
1) 0 has a unique multiplicative inverse
2) we can distribute such an inverse
Both of these things need proof.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 21:43:04 No.11731527 Report

Quoted By: >>11731548

>>11731443
No, I am assuming that 0/0 could potentially be any number that times 0 is 0. I assume that it does NOT have a unique multiplicative inverse.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 29 May 2020 21:51:08 No.11731548 Report

Quoted By:

>>11731527
then it's not consistent with the rest of math, because 0/0 implies taking multiplicative inverse of the denominator

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