My theory of defining the division by zero

[Thorn of Death]

Ok, let's see.

Part one:

1/1 = 1
1/0.5 = 2
1/0.2 = 5
1/0.1 = 10
1/0.01 = 100
1/0.00001 = 100000

We see here that the smaller the devident gets, the bigger the result, until we reach zero. Some people tried to define it as infinite, but that wouldn't work for several reasons, including that the zero is niether positive nor negative, so we can't know wether the result would be negative or positive.

ONCE we skip the zero to -0.000001 for example, we get a big(small?) negative number as a result, which is -1000000. How did this happen? we were getting closer to infinite, and suddenly we're near negative infinite. So the result of deviding by zero must be a barrier between infinite and negative infinite, which we can also call the zero of infinite, since another mathmatical meaning of zero is a barrier between the positive and negative numbers.

So the line of numbers is more of a circle of numbers, not a line.

Part two:

The equation: x/(x-3) represents a similar graph to:

As we see, the line goes way up as x gets closer to 3, which will make the equation devided by zero, and then suddenly it starts from negative infinite when x gets a little more than 3.

They say that paralell lines meet at infinite, but these two lines do not meet at infinite nor negative infinite, because they go in opposite directions. So when do they meet and where? they meet when x=3, and at the infinite zero point, which is a result of deviding by x - 3 whereas x = 3.

Excuse me for the lousy english.

 

[Ikerous]

They dont meet anywhere... x=3 is a vertical asymptote, no matter how high you go itll just keep getting closer to 3 w/o ever reaching it...
:: Doesn't understand whats interesting..::

 

[Thorn of Death]

So you tell me, where do paralell lines meet? you'd tell me they don't, but mathematicians say they do at theoritical points at infinite and negative infinite.

It's not nice to go stamping: "Not interesting" at posts that don't interest you. Don't like it, don't bother.

 

[Tr0n]

The answer is 42!

 

[Ikerous]

So you tell me, where do paralell lines meet? you'd tell me they don't, but mathematicians say they do at theoritical points at infinite and negative infinite.

It's not nice to go stamping: "Not interesting" at posts that don't interest you. Don't like it, don't bother.

I find math very interesting, i merely dont see the interest in this..
1/x isn't a continuous function and therefore doesnt need to be defined at every point
Sure you could do the limit as x->0 from the negative side and youd get a value of -infinity, or the limit as x->0 from the positive side and get +infinity.
But on a simple x,y coordinate plane, theyd never meet, and there wouldn't be a value at 0..

 

[Thorn of Death]

42?

Look guys, please don't consider me a fool because this isn't too serious. I was just having fun with math, and I've come up with this theoritical theory, and waiting to see who will break it up logically.


You didn't answer me about the paralell lines. And you're only talking about the graph. I merely defined the point where you said it doesn't exist, but you've done nothing to prove it but quoting the exact math logics that failed to define it.

 

[Tr0n]

42?

Look guys, please don't consider me a fool because this isn't too serious. I was just having fun with math, and I've come up with this theoritical theory, and waiting to see who will break it up logically.

We ain't...we are joking around also.

...and the 42 thing...I'm guessing you don't know the story behind it.

 

[Thorn of Death]

What's with the 42?

 

[Ikerous]

You didn't answer me about the paralell lines. And you're only talking about the graph. I merely defined the point where you said it doesn't exist, but you've done nothing to prove it but quoting the exact math logics that failed to define it.

Paralell lines cant touch... they're paralell.. the very definition is that they won't touch...

And its not a shortcoming of math that it isnt defined at that value, its that the function itself is undefined at that value.. there just doesnt exist a y value for that x value...

^_^ The hitchhikers guide the galaxy the movie comes out May sixth

 

[Ranga]

42?

hitchhikers guide to the galaxy

 

[Tr0n]

What's with the 42?

42!

 

[The Monkey]

What's with the 42?

Are you kidding me?

 

[Dasparov]

I thought the answer to life would have something to do with the 4 letters T, C, G and A...but 42 seems like it could be right

 

[Thorn of Death]

Meeting at infinity is another way of waying they don't touch in reality.

 

[Dasparov]

Meeting at infinity is another way of waying they don't touch in reality.

After reading that i got hungry for pizza!, serious aswell

 

[the_lone_wolf]

Ok, let's see.

Part one:

1/1 = 1
1/0.5 = 2
1/0.2 = 5
1/0.1 = 10
1/0.01 = 100
1/0.00001 = 100000

We see here that the smaller the devident gets, the bigger the result, until we reach zero. Some people tried to define it as infinite

actually thats just a nice way of saying it's undefined, such a number does not exist

but that wouldn't work for several reasons, including that the zero is niether positive nor negative, so we can't know wether the result would be negative or positive.

ONCE we skip the zero to -0.000001 for example, we get a big(small?) negative number as a result, which is -1000000. How did this happen? we were getting closer to infinite, and suddenly we're near negative infinite.

thats because the function is not continuous

So the result of deviding by zero must be a barrier between infinite and negative infinite, which we can also call the zero of infinite, since another mathmatical meaning of zero is a barrier between the positive and negative numbers.

hmm, sort of lost the mathematical resoning here and started more conjecture, "a barrier between +/- infinity" is your definition, as far as i know zero is simply nothing, it's another number on the scale between 1 and -1

So the line of numbers is more of a circle of numbers, not a line.

only in the sense that infinity, whether it be "positive or negative" is the same, undefined

Part two:

The equation: x/(x-3) represents a similar graph to:

As we see, the line goes way up as x gets closer to 3, which will make the equation devided by zero, and then suddenly it starts from negative infinite when x gets a little more than 3.

thi is exactly the same case as part one, any number divided by zero is undefined

They say that paralell lines meet at infinite,

not quote, like someone else said they don't meet, ever, saying "they meet at infinity" is just something people are told to either confude them or stop them asking more questions

but these two lines do not meet at infinite nor negative infinite, because they go in opposite directions. So when do they meet and where? they meet when x=3

mathematical proof? parallel lines cannot meet unless "infinity" is defined, so you'd have to find a number which satisfies x=1/0

and at the infinite zero point, which is a result of deviding by x - 3 whereas x = 3.

in other words if x=3 and you divide by (x-3) you're dividing by zero, same as part one, the answer is undefined, thats why you get the junp in the function

Excuse me for the lousy english.

no problems

not sure if that answers your questions, i'm not quite sure what you're trying to make a point of?

 

[baron insig]

42 > : You all:

I wanna read that book again

 

[f|uke]

So the line of numbers is more of a circle of numbers, not a line.

I get it,.
Its just like in Asteroids,...
When you fly to the end of the screen, you just come out on the other side :|

 

[Darkknighttt]

parellel lines never meet. get 2 rulers put them them exactly straight and move them forward for your whole life. there you go they still wont meet. infinite is not a number. math people say they'll meet at infinity, well thats gay why even bother saying that infinity is just another way of saying they'll never meet. case closed. why is there a thread on this?

 

[Thorn of Death]

THAT DOES NOT CONTRADICT WITH WHAT I SAID.

The purpose of this is to show that numbers go in a circle instead of a line. Positive and negative numbers are connected downwards by the zero, while they're connected upwards by the number produced by deviding by zero.

1: y = 1/x as x -> 0 from the left ==> y = +infinite.
2: y = 1/x as x -> 0 from the right ==> y = -infinite.

See the sudden change of sign? y kept increasing without bound until it reached the point where y = 1/x as x = 0, which is undefined. Then it suddenly jumps to -infinite, and continues it's path of increasing.

To illustrate:

 

[kirovman]

Ah Asymptotes. Without you my life of Physics would be so much easier...

But luckily good approximations have been developed for formulae.

 

[<RJMC>]

oh no

maths

I hate maths

my brain burns

me like 42

 

[ComradeBadger]

THAT DOES NOT CONTRADICT WITH WHAT I SAID.

The purpose of this is to show that numbers go in a circle instead of a line. Positive and negative numbers are connected downwards by the zero, while they're connected upwards by the number produced by deviding by zero.

1: y = 1/x as x -> 0 from the left ==> y = +infinite.
2: y = 1/x as x -> 0 from the right ==> y = -infinite.

See the sudden change of sign? y kept increasing without bound until it reached the point where y = 1/x as x = 0, which is undefined. Then it suddenly jumps to -infinite, and continues it's path of increasing.

To illustrate:

The problem lies with the fact there is no -infinity, simply infinity.

 

[Thorn of Death]

What?! you're kidding, right? All my time studying math I've dealt with -infinite.

 

[ComradeBadger]

As far as I'm concerned, -infinity = infinity.

Also, the comment about the fact that the lines won't meet, ever holds true.

 

[Ikerous]

The problem lies with the fact there is no -infinity, simply infinity.

Theres an infinite amount of numebrs in -infinity, its not really says -infinity isnt infinity, its just useful to denote them seperately when doing limits, asymptotes, graphing, etc.

Negative infinity merely indicates that the number is going to infintiy in the downward or leftwardly direction, while positive infinity indicates its going to infinity in the upward or rightwardly direction.

 

[Thorn of Death]

Also, the comment about the fact that the lines won't meet, ever holds true.

Please. I have never denied that. Never ever in my entire life and death.

 

[Narcolepsy]

You all know that Euclidean Geometry has been proved false, right? And space can bend and all of that great stuff. Many amazing mathematical discoveries have been made by those who thought outside of the preordained rules - take Einstein, and the whole "redefining the definition of gravity" thing.

I love math.

 

[Drizzt]

As far as I'm concerned, -infinity = infinity.

Also, the comment about the fact that the lines won't meet, ever holds true.

I think he was talking about limits. That x approaches 0 from -infinity, means it approaches 0 from the right hand side (moving left)


I think.

I'm just taking calculus because i need it for computing science. Weak.

 

[Dan]

A lot of people seem to have a hard time grasping infinity. I hear a lot of parallel lines can't meet at infinity because infinity doesn't exist. That's the whole point. Infinity is just a concept. And mathematics is great for dealing with abstract concepts. It's like i numbers. At a theoretical infinity, those lines will meet.

 

[Maui]

1: y = 1/x as x -> 0 from the left ==> y = +infinite.
2: y = 1/x as x -> 0 from the right ==> y = -infinite.

To be anal, y -> infinity, not y = infinity :cheers:

Number systems as a circle rather than a continuum is an interesting thought. I would, however, call into question how you arrived at your idea. Were it circular, that would imply you could add something to infinity to arrive at negative infinity, correct? Of course this doesn't pan out since infinity + a = infinity, by definition. I'll admit I'm a little over my head, as I'm more interested in the directly applicable mathematics, so if I'm missing the point let me know. :imu:

*EDIT*

You all know that Euclidean Geometry has been proved false, right? And space can bend and all of that great stuff. Many amazing mathematical discoveries have been made by those who thought outside of the preordained rules - take Einstein, and the whole "redefining the definition of gravity" thing.

I'd heard of spacetime bending and Einstein thinking about gravity in multiple dimensions, but not Eclidean geo being proven wrong. Has it really?

 

[Narcolepsy]

I'd heard of spacetime bending and Einstein thinking about gravity in multiple dimensions, but not Eclidean geo being proven wrong. Has it really?

It works fine here on earth, but when you're dealing with HUGE distances, as in, cross-universe, it no longer holds, as space bends due to the space/time continuum and stuff. It's way over my head.

 

[Dan]

That doesn't mean that euclidean geometry is wrong. Remember that geometry is an abstract study. It just means that it doesn't apply to that study. Saying it's wrong is like saying that numbers greater than 10 are wrong because i can't count that high. The concept is fine, it's the applications that fail.

 

[Thorn of Death]

To be anal, y -> infinity, not y = infinity

I'm on a vacation. So excuse me. Thanks.

Number systems as a circle rather than a continuum is an interesting thought. I would, however, call into question how you arrived at your idea. Were it circular, that would imply you could add something to infinity to arrive at negative infinity, correct? Of course this doesn't pan out since infinity + a = infinity, by definition. I'll admit I'm a little over my head

Not by adding you can't. But my thought is about devision. The number you devide by gets smaller and smaller, so that the result gets bigger and bigger, until x gets passes the zero to the negative part. That's when y will become y -> -infinite from y -> +infinite, as shown in the image.

The result of deviding by zero is neither positive not negative. I am assuming that it's because it's another zero (or whatever it may be called) that stands between +infinite and -infinite, instead of +1 and -1.



Think about it this way:

Imagine that x in the quation y = 1/x, decreases from 1, to -1. take the different values and resultes, putting in mind that the domain is all real numbers. y will start to climb up the circle as x is decreasing. The closer x gets to 0, to higher y will be. When taking REALLY small values of x (x -> 0), y will be so huge (y -> +infinite).

So what happens when x actually reachs zero? where would y get in the circle? the opposite side of the zero; the theoritical barrier between +infinite and -infinite. After x goes to the negative side, (x -> 0 from the left), y will become y -> -infinite, instead of +infinite.

 

[Ranga]

apparently there is a theory that if you shine a torch towards the edge of the universe (der....), it will curve back around, and shine on you. only problem is, u need one hell of a torch... (and a lot of time...)

ps. does this apply to ur parallel lines?

 

[Thorn of Death]

It's just incridibly frustrating. All the attention goes to the examples I give; the parallel lines, and the graph, away from the main point.

 

[the_lone_wolf]

It's just incridibly frustrating. All the attention goes to the examples I give; the parallel lines, and the graph, away from the main point.

but what is your point? seriously, i'm not seeing it?

 

[Dan]

. <---- point

 

[Thorn of Death]

Haha, good one Dan.

Only because you're serious.

Number systems as a circle rather than a continuum is an interesting thought.

The purpose of this is to show that numbers go in a circle instead of a line. Positive and negative numbers are connected downwards by the zero, while they're connected upwards by the number produced by deviding by zero.

And you should open the attachment above too. Maybe you'll get the point.

Maybe someday, in the next few years, someone somewhere will discover that the purpose of this isn't to show that parallel lines meet at infinite in reality. Then, I could rest in peace.

 

[oberGeist]

this whole theory of circle of numbers is interesting - but we are forgetting one important fact: there's no INFINITY, + or - (although I've bee taught that infinity in its theoretical meaning is always positive or absolute). it's undefinable, it DOESN'T EXIST.
because to every number we can add/substract 1, so there's no possiblity of comming even close to infinity.
so there's no reason for closing that circle, because it'll simply never close. it'll be either a blurred point in space or two parallel lines. something like that...

the first one shows infinite as an absolute number, second is a situation when infinite can be -

edit: can anyone please tell me how to insert images to posts, instead of putting them an attachments? thx
btw - edited the second picture. now it's ok