Topic: Zero divided by zero equals= ????

[kharn012000]

kharandhil, my opinion of you just went up two notches.

[Khain Mor (/kharandhil)]

could a moderator please lock this before someone suffers permanent brain damage or an anuerism from trying to get it through that you cannot divide by 0.  If you have five apples and divide them amongst your "0" friends you still have five apples so the entire question and deliberation are pointless.

if i had to opportunity to start about phisics (my favorite) you would really become crazy ,i do sometimes....

[Bludd spilla]

Yes, Physics does consist of many variables that would drive me insane if I were ever to study it.  Thanks for not starting.

[Wingednothing]

It is either "undefined," or an "imaginary number." Yes, they do exist, at least, in mathmatical theory they do.

[Valkor]

Me and a freind of mine are still arguing this. Here are some of the posibilites, and their likely hood

1 - Okay, this follows a rule of fractions. The saem number over itself. However.. this is flawed compared to

0 - because 0 goes into 0, 0 times, on the other hand, if we give it a tangibly value, then it becomes

infinity - because 0 can go into any number an infinite number of times. This is what teachers mean by undefined, but once we think about it, we go back to 1...

[GoldFish]

0 is nothing, it has no value, so is nothing.
So nothing divided by nothing is nothing, you cannot create something from nothing, therefore the answer must be nothing, but that would go against laws n stuff, i think that the only logical explanation would be found once we master the fourth dimension, untill then undefined pretty much sums up the answer, as no one can be sure

[kharn012000]

It would be ... "imaginary number." Yes, they do exist, at least, in mathmatical theory they do.

No, it wouldn't. an imaginary number is the result of square rooting a negative number.

[Scars]

Zero is not a number, zero is the theroy.

[Wingednothing]

opps, sorry Kharn, you're right. I haven't taken math in... something like five years, and am starting to get the pointless theories mixed up!

[Warhoon]

Me and a freind of mine are still arguing this. Here are some of the posibilites, and their likely hood

1 - Okay, this follows a rule of fractions. The saem number over itself. However.. this is flawed compared to

0 - because 0 goes into 0, 0 times, on the other hand, if we give it a tangibly value, then it becomes

infinity - because 0 can go into any number an infinite number of times. This is what teachers mean by undefined, but once we think about it, we go back to 1...

What is with this topic?

This is like arguing if the number "1" means there's only "one" of something.

Mathematicians have already worked this out.  There's no room for debate.  There isn't room for opinion here, unless you're prepared to debate 100 years worth of mathematic proof.

Aaargh!

[AceV53]

Ask any professor of math and they will tell you 0 divided by 0 is "UNDEFINED". Some rules can and do overpower other rules and this is one of those rules. Anything divided by zero is undefined. Try this one. Is Zero positive or negative.

[kharn012000]

neither.

[high-avatar]

both...

[Rathireon]

If any professor of mathematics, and I don’t care if he’s researched it for a thousand years, tells me that 0 divided by 0 equals anything other than 0 I would be forced to slap some sense into him!

The same goes for x divided by 0 - if he doesn’t give me the answer as x then I would be pushed into taking severe action!  How can any number divided by 0 equal infinity?  

What!?  You mean if I have £1 and I hide it unshared by anybody, it will start mass reproducing itself!?!?  Wahay!  I’ll  go back to find it in a couple of years and be a multi-millionaire!  

What if I have half a choccy bar and am feeling very hungry?  Do I hide it in my cupboard and when I return there will be an infinite supply of them?  Yum!!  

Crazed mathematical theories that tell anyone otherwise are just breaking the physical laws of nature.  They are as real as fairies, pixies, elves and the 40k universe.

[Arcas]

Your argumentation has a flaw, if you don't share something with anyone, then you still share it with yourself - this equals a division by 1. If a thing is shared with no-one, even not with yourself, then no-one can access it anymore, and then no-one can know how many there are of that original thing. That information is lost then, and there is no way to gain it again. You can compare that situation to Schroedinger's cat+box+cyanide experiment.

A multiplication of A*B is defined as B+B+B+B, with A summands (voc?), or vice versa. Division is defined as the opposite, the number of summands of B which you need in order to gain a sum of A.

If you use "0" as summands, then you can have an infinite number of these without having another result than 0. You can have any number of them, therefore the reverse operation, division, isn't defined. Just because it can be any number and none at the same time.

jwu

[Kei'Ariq]

Alternatively consider the limit case of A/B
Where A is a known positive number and B is a number very close to zero. As B is reduced closer and closer to zero, the result of A/B becomes larger and larger. Thus the case for A/0 = infinity.

Similarly, if you consider A/A as A tends to zero, the result will be one.

And then consider 0/A, which as A tends to zero will be zero.

As all three options make sense, it is clear that there is no unique result to 0/0, and thus the answer is undefined.

[Khain Mor (/kharandhil)]

ok i see you're not convinced

0 : 0 = 0    it's 100% true

i don't care about what you think 0 is a number ,mathematician thought about it for a VERY long time and they all agreed that is was a number
cause you need something which represents nothing ,i can be something that's not defined , because you're working in a certain conjunction ,for example the conjunction of real numbers ,or maybe complex numbers

an empty conjunction is an answer to your equation ,like a number like 0 could be , but it only means there is no answer in the vectorspace you're working in ....(don't ask something vectorspaces, it's a kind of conjunction...)

in the advanced mathematics you will be able to define the number 0 as an empty conjunction (then only you could say 0 = 'nothing' ) and so  you can define the number 1 , 2,3,4,5,.....

lets call the emty conjunction '§' ,ok
there are 2 ways to define the emty conjunction as {} or as § (it's supposed to be another symbol which i can't write on the site)

ok lets do it/define in symbols

(0 = {} or) ,but better 0 = § ,then

1 = {§}

2 = {§,{§}}

3 = {§,{§},{§,{§}}}

4 = {§,{§},{§,{§}},{§,{§},{§,{§}}}}

and so on, imagine how long it gets....

there you (kind of) define it so like i said 0 : 0(which is now defined) = 0

you see that algebra is based on nothing (the emty conjunction to define  0 and the other numbers)

the people who still go to shool should ask how you can define numbers in general
ok 3 = 1 + 2 , 2 = 1 + 1 , 1 = 1 + 0 ?, 0 = ??

every number is based on 1 and 0 ,and that means that they aren't defined.....

the '1' is only a basis in your one dimentional thing we (mathematicians) call a 'field' (a field is something like this :
 'conjunction, + , *'  (the + can be changed in many other things ...)
the conjunction of real numbers in for example a field
the thing a called a basis is a number into the field (or could be in a vectorspace) that defines all the other numbers (or the whole conjunction)
you define any number in the conjunction as this
conjunction = (basis) * K (K= real number,any possible number...)

what i just wrote is a result of algebra mixed with analytic geometry ,that's why it's ,a bit more complicate then just counting  ...
for the people that doens't know : there is no difference between algerbra and geometry
the only thing that changes is the way of writing it all....

it's all so easy for me.....but i wonder if anyone understands what i've just written  

anyway, it's already written ,so....
-posting-

[miclantecuthli]

an empty conjunction is an answer to your equation ,like a number like 0 could be , but it only means there is no answer in the vectorspace you're working in ....(don't ask something vectorspaces, it's a kind of conjunction...)

no, not true. An empty conjunction (is conjunction verzameling in Dutch?) is not an answer to the equatation 0/0 = x.

It's easiest to start with the definition of "/"

a/b = c <=> a = b.c

If we substitute a and b with 0 and 0:

0/0 = c <-> 0 = 0.c

This equatation is true for every number -> the empty conjunction is not the answer we search. Every answer is correct -> it's undifined (in R, C, ...)

The same equatation 0/0 = x is not always undefined.
for example:

0/0 = 0 in {0}

[Khain Mor (/kharandhil)]

ok i see you're not convinced

0 : 0 = 0    it's 100% true

answer is 0 ,ok

YEAH BUT DO NOT put it like this
a/b = c <=> a = b.c

0/0 = c <-> 0 = 0.c
(het getal 0 is een opslopend element)
every number * 0 =0 (a special number for many things in algebra)
so 0/0 = c <-> 0 = 0.c
c = any number, that's really wrong
this is correct
0/c = 0 <-> 0 = 0.c if you define 0 like i did

c is a number of the conjunction (ja het is een verz)
0 is (normaly) also a number of your conjunction unless you take a conjunction without it (yes you can do it)

hihihihi ,don't try to correct me you'll have to correct all the mathematics....

[miclantecuthli]

answer is 0 ,ok

YEAH BUT DO NOT put it like this
a/b = c <=> a = b.c

0/0 = c <-> 0 = 0.c
(het getal 0 is een opslopend element)
every number * 0 =0 (a special number for many things in algebra)
so 0/0 = c <-> 0 = 0.c
c = any number, that's really wrong
this is correct
0/c = 0 <-> 0 = 0.c if you define 0 like i did

c is a number of the conjunction (ja het is een verz)
0 is (normaly) also a number of your conjunction unless you take a conjunction without it (yes you can do it)

a) i didn't define "0", but "/" and the definition of "/" is what i posted before:

a/b = c <-> a = b.c

The definition of 0 isn't important if you try to find the answer to the equatation 0/0 = x

What do you do when searching x in   9/3 = x ?

You try to find a number wich gives 9 if you multiply it with 3. You do the same here: you try to find the number wich gives 0 when multiplied with 0.

b) there are indeed lots of conjunctions without 0, but they aren't important here.

You can't find a solution for the equatation 0/0 = x in a conjunction without 0 if you're working "/" defined in that conjunction, cause 0 doesn't exist in the conjunction you're working with.