My theory of defining the division by zero

[the_lone_wolf]

ah, i think i see what you're getting at, but i'm not really comfortable with it, for a couple of reasons:

1. in the context of the function y=1/x even if there's was a value of y for which y could equal 1/0 then you still could not call the funtion continuous, because the valuse of y as {-x -> 0} and {x -> 0} are not converging, they are diverging.

2. you 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.

if small numbers can be represented on a numberline thus:

... -2 -1 0 1 2 ...

then your proposal says that you can have this:

... -999 -999999999 -999999999999999999999999999 {your number} 999999999999999999999999999999 999999999 999 ...

which simply cannot happen, if you continue to subtract from a negative number it will never become positive, no matter how much to subtract. (to be pedantic by it's very defenition you would never even reach "infinity")

3. the definition "undefined" doesn't just apply to y=1/0, it also applys to other undefinable mathematical quantities such as y=log(0) - this function is not symetric in the way |1/x| is, any value of x for which x is equal to or less than 0 is undefined in the equation y=log(x) . our concept of "infinity" simply cannot be described by the language of mathematics, "infinity" is not a number, it's a nice way of saying the value which satisfies the equation is undefined.

i hope you can see what i'm trying to say here, it's difficult to get thoughts from head to screen at times

 

[Thorn of Death]

Ok, now I'm feeling a little more comfortable.

which simply cannot happen, if you continue to subtract from a negative number it will never become positive, no matter how much to subtract. (to be pedantic by it's very defenition you would never even reach "infinity")

Ummmmm. Subtracting woudn't do that, because it does not reach the undefined point, you see. By division, it would happen.

1. in the context of the function y=1/x even if there's was a value of y for which y could equal 1/0 then you still could not call the funtion continuous, because the valuse of y as {-x -> 0} and {x -> 0} are not converging, they are diverging.

That's because infinite doesn't actually exist in reality. If it did, it would be contiuous. Yeah, that's right. But it doesn't make my circle wrong. Or does it?

"infinity" is not a number, it's a nice way of saying the value which satisfies the equation is undefined.

I haven't seen infinite used in precise equations.

I haven't used it myself:
... -999 -999999999 -999999999999999999999999999 {my number} 999999999999999999999999999999 999999999 999 ...

 

[Thorn of Death]

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.

I know infinite does not exist. It's used to show the increase without bound and simiular things. And -infinite is used to show the decrease without bound, and that's exactly how I used the term.

[edit] The images you posted explain my theory EXACTLY. Only that the image I posted is only a top view of both of them.

So, are these made by you?

 

[kirovman]

Consider this:

exp{infinity} --->infinity
exp{-infinity} --->zero

So, can infinity = -infinity after realising this?

BTW Thorn of Death, are you a Mathematician?

 

[the_lone_wolf]

Ummmmm. Subtracting woudn't do that, because it does not reach the undefined point, you see. By division, it would happen.

erm, division by what exactly? you said "small numbers are linked by zero, large numbers are linked by 1/0" - you also talke about a circle of numbers - if this circle actually existed you would have some point between a very large +ve number and a large -ve number which would have to be represented by a real number, but you offer no definition of this number, which =1/0

Explain please how that goes against it?

it goes against it because if there where a circle of numbers there would be continuity in this function, not a jump at x=0

I haven't seen infinite used in precise equations.

like i said previously thats because any value that gives "infinity" is undefined, and cannot be mathematically represented

I haven't used it myself:
... -999 -999999999 -999999999999999999999999999 {my number} 999999999999999999999999999999 999999999 999 ...

not sure what that means

i think you'll just have to accept your conjecture is mathematically impossible, post a mathmatical proof, or even any evidence that it actually works

 

[Thorn of Death]

You posted alittle too early, I was editing. Check the images mr. what's his name posted lastly in the first page.

but you offer no definition of this number, which =1/0

Yes, it's not a real number. It's a hole between the two sides.

it goes against it because if there where a circle of numbers there would be continuity in this function, not a jump at x=0

You're still misunderstanding me a little. The number is more of a hole, not a real number. So it being discontinuous doesn't refute the circle with a hole on the top, for it's still a circle. Or, as illustrated in mr. what's his name's image, goes in a spiral sort of way.



Sorry, mr. what's his name. I'm too lazy to go back to the first page.

Consider this:

exp{infinity} --->infinity
exp{-infinity} --->zero

So, can infinity = -infinity after realising this?

BTW Thorn of Death, are you a Mathematician?

Not really, I'm a math nerd in collage.

Can you describe the exp function as f(x)=....., so that I'd get a better understanding? I don't like automatic functions of calculators.

 

[kirovman]

Just in case you're interested and you want more concrete discussion, I refer you to:
http://physicsforums.com/index.php?

They have a special maths section there, and when you get involved with discussions there, the people usually know what they are talking about.

 

[Thorn of Death]

The problem is getting them to understand me, not to get them saying what they understand. I'm afraid that as soon as they see me, they'll start discussing parallel lines.

 

[the_lone_wolf]

You're still misunderstanding me a little. The number is more of a hole, not a real number. So it being discontinuous doesn't refute the circle with a hole on the top, for it's still a circle. Or, as illustrated in mr. what's his name's image, goes in a spiral sort of way.

those pictures still don't show anything that the maths can't, as the line moves off in the +ve and -ve directions it will never meet again, it will always be blocked by the mathematical singularity at 1/0

think of it this way: whats the difference in the measurement of a length along a piece of string layed straight, and one layed in a circle but still with a gap? nothing

many people have come up with some outlandish conjectures, of which very few make it to being a theory simple because their authers offer no proof but argue their case endlessly

check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and get your definitions right, then show some proof, otherwise it's only as valid as me saying "the world is flat" and from then on offering no evidence

 

[kirovman]

The problem is getting them to understand me, not to get them saying what they understand. I'm afraid that as soon as they see me, they'll start discussing parallel lines.

Hehe, fair enough.

As for the asympototes in the +ve and -ve directions, I think you could just call it a discontinuity. Discontinuities are common in physics for example, but there are ways and methods to work around it and get physically acceptable solutions.

It also happens in the tan function, since cosec -->+/-infinity at certain angular values.

 

[Thorn of Death]

Hey hey hey, I was just having a little fun. I want to end this quickly so that would continue enjoying my vacation.

I'm not playing with numbers in this theory, therefore, it's impossible to get a real clear proof.

think of it this way: whats the difference in the measurement of a length along a piece of string layed straight, and one layed in a circle but still with a gap? nothing

I'm not arguing the length, only the shape. The linear discription is much simpler to understand for newbies. But the circular shape is closer to the way numbers actually behave in terms of decreasing and increasing. Never mind the circular image, I'll just adobt mr. what's his name's second image.

 

[the_lone_wolf]

I'm not arguing the length, only the shape. The linear discription is much simpler to understand for newbies. But the circular shape is closer to the way numbers actually behave in terms of decreasing and increasing. Never mind the circular image, I'll just adobt mr. what's his name's second image.

how exactly do numbers behave as if they are on a curved number line, show me a mathematical reasoning for that - the only feature of importance on a numberline is how far along it you travel between two points, it's "shape" means nothing in mathematics.

if you're not "playing with numbers" you can't expect a mathematician to entertain your idea for that long, it's more along the lines of philosophy but with no real insight, you've basically said "that number is undefined, i propose it's this..." - which is fine, but i could just as well propose that it's actually zero, or Pi, or whatever, offer no proof either and have just as strong an arguement for my conjecture.

 

[kirovman]

how exactly do numbers behave as if they are on a curved number line, show me a mathematical reasoning for that - the only feature of importance on a numberline is how far along it you travel between two points, it's "shape" means nothing in mathematics.

if you're not "playing with numbers" you can't expect a mathematician to entertain your idea for that long, it's more along the lines of philosophy but with no real insight, you've basically said "that number is undefined, i propose it's this..." - which is fine, but i could just as well propose that it's actually zero, or Pi, or whatever, offer no proof either and have just as strong an arguement for my conjecture.

Yes, speculation is fine, but it is good to have a decent background knowledge.

Just for an example, all too often I see many people speculating that "Einstein was wrong" and that "you can go faster than light if you put a hole in space-time" or "quantum physics is wrong", however these people have no real deep mathematical knowledge in the subject or indeed any knowledge of it at all.

I'm not saying that's the case here, you just reminded me of one of my pet peeves, and I decided I'd have a random rant about it, that's all

 

[Dinkleberry]

I worked out why you can't solve simultaneous equations in 2 variables if the lines are parallel, but I never thought about the fact that they intersect at infinity before. Also, what is a straight line, but a circle with infinite radius (taught that little gem by my physics teacher)?
I'd say 1/0= +- infinity at the same time.
But how about some other undefined numbers?
0/0 <- think about that one ;-)

if any number div/ itself = 1
if 0 div/ any number = 0
if any number div/ zero = +-infinity
then 0/0 = 1,0 and +- infinity at the same time. I'm gonna be shot down but hey, I'll believe it.

what is 0^0 ?
0 ^ of any number = 0
any number ^ 0 = 1

 

[oberGeist]

[edit] The images you posted explain my theory EXACTLY. Only that the image I posted is only a top view of both of them.

So, are these made by you?

yes, that is what i intented to show.
I made them (3dsmax + photoshop).

when you rotate those strings and look at them from above you'll get extacly what you've been saying - a circle.
but it will never be closed.
and the only way that it could ever be a circle is for it to have a finite radius. so if we want the numbers to still get closer to infinity we have to bend our circle in 3rd dimension. that way it will not close - ever. but the numbers can still get close to infinity, growing in finite steps - up or down the numeral axis. in either way we have an asymptote, in one of them the numbers will meet in theoretical infinity, in the other they will switch signs from + to - in that same theoretical infinity.
so either it's a virtual point where n->inf from the left and n->inf from the right meet or its an asymptote where they only switch sides.
we have two possibilities, and they both can be right and both can be wrong.

I love math


EDIT: and my name is oberGeist, it's not that hard

EDIT 2: I've updated the images with the asymptote, so they should be easier to understand

 

[the_lone_wolf]

what is 0^0

another undefined unfortunately :dozey:

@kirovman, i don't study maths, although i do study physics, and will finish my degree in a couple of months, too often the case with making a subject like physics accessable to the public is the lines blur between what is fact and what's star trek and that leads to people saying things like "Einstein was wrong cause i heard it on a TV show once" - i don't pretend to know much about physics, in fact after 3 years of study i reckon i realise i know less than when i started, but one thing you do learn during that time is that if you make a bold statement you need evidence/proof to back it up

 

[Thorn of Death]

And mr............oberGeist, yeah, that's a really good piece of work you've done, and now it even looks cuter. I even actually thought you've gotten it from an official math website, or something. How long did it take you to do it?



When I was asked by younger people: How does the number grow when you devide it by another number? I explain to them how it works, and tell them the smaller the number you devide it by, the bigger it gets. but then, I thought about negative numbers, they are smaller than 1/2 and other fractions, but why don't they produce bigger numbers? why to they send it to the extreme opposite? then I thought of it as a circle. It increases beyond infinite to -infinite, and the barrier/hole is the result of deviding by zero, which is(zero itself) is also a berrier between + and -. So the idea grew in my head. I confused several of the people around me with it. It was fun to see them thinking.


Ok then, wolf. You get me a proof that this is enough for us to understand the entire real number system:

-infinite -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +infinite
<--------|--|--|--|--|--|--|------->

You will not get me a proof as solid as y=x, x=1 ==> y=1, just as I couldn't do to the circle. (or whatever you'd call it..)

I've just thought up a new system, and if YOU don't like it, YOU give me proof that it's wrong.

 

[oberGeist]

Oh ok, fine, I get it. You had to write all that, while you could've written it in 3 words: Just shut up.

And mr............oberGeist, yeah, that's a really good piece of work you've done, and now it even looks cuter. I even actually thought you've gotten it from an official math website, or something. How long did it take you to do it?

you're asking about the time I spent to draw it or to imagine it?
drawing took about 15 minutes (it's crappy, only a sketch).

 

[Thorn of Death]

Uh, oberGeist, I'm still editing, and I'm quite an unstable person(changing moods). That quote is outdated.

I still like the sketch. Much better than mine, which took about the same amount of time. I only used simple painting tools, but I wouldn't know how to do the 3D stuff even if you give me the tools.

Anyway, the wiseman says: "Science, does not have to be fancy, as long as the basic idea is clear."

 

[kirovman]

another undefined unfortunately :dozey:

@kirovman, i don't study maths, although i do study physics, and will finish my degree in a couple of months, too often the case with making a subject like physics accessable to the public is the lines blur between what is fact and what's star trek and that leads to people saying things like "Einstein was wrong cause i heard it on a TV show once" - i don't pretend to know much about physics, in fact after 3 years of study i reckon i realise i know less than when i started, but one thing you do learn during that time is that if you make a bold statement you need evidence/proof to back it up

I'm in the same boat as you, gonna finish my physics soon, been here for 3 years...although I think I know a lot about things I had no idea of before.

Of course in a 3 year degree course, we won't learn anything about string theory, or anything like that, but we get through education on Electromagnetism, Thermal, Quantum and Solid State physics.

But it's interesting to be able to apply the knowledge to discussions, and learn new things from others (for example, there's no General Relativity on my course, but I intend to have a go at learning the maths behind it...after I graduate).

 

[the_lone_wolf]

Ok then, wolf. You get me a proof that this is enough for us to understand the entire real number system:

-infinite -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +infinite
<--------|--|--|--|--|--|--|------->

You will not get me a proof as solid as y=x, x=1 ==> y=1, just as I couldn't do to the circle. (or whatever you'd call it..)

WTF? prove what exactly? try giving an example that makes sense and then asking someone to prove it, if you're asking me to prove that numbers on a numberline go from -INF to +INF then thats exactly the same ask asking me to show that a blue ball is blue, you've given the proof in the definition of the question since a numberline does show every number by definition. i should have made it clear i was talking about the real extended numberline previously, my apologies if that confused you

I've just thought up a new system, and if YOU don't like it, YOU give me proof that it's wrong.

err, no, thats not how it works, if one person makes a ridiculous conjecture it's their responsibility to prove it, i can prove your conjecture wrong by simply saying 1/0 is undefined and therefore has no value, therefore you cannot have a number circle

And mr............oberGeist, yeah, that's a really good piece of work you've done, and now it even looks cuter.

"aaah, look at the pretty pictures, aren't they cute" - i have to say you have summed up the depth of your argument there, nothing more than pseudo-mathematics with a hint of a child's imagination, and from that you've postulated that the value which equals 1/0 somehow connects +/-INF simply because one function you've observed displays that trend before it becomes discontinuous. this will always remain a conjecture until you define 1/0, which you can't do. btw obergeist, this is not aimed at your sketches, which are an accurate representation of the functions and which still show the singularity.

it's obvious you're quite defensive of this conjecture, you seem to be blinded to reality by your fascination this undefinable quantity, and nothing, not even reasonable arguement, will convince you otherwise, so there's little point in me continuing to try and help show you why it's impossible. let me leave this thread by proposing to you this thought experiment:

first, assume you have a never ending supply of dinner plates, space, time, energy, or any other factor that if not never ending would affect the experiment.

now suppose you start to stack your plates, so you start with one, then two, then three, four, five, six, etc etc.

now imagine you have a drawing of a numberline with you, and each time you stack another plate you mark off it's place on the line, so when you put one down you put a cross through the number one, then two, three, etc etc.

if your circular numberline, with a defined value of "infinity" were a correct representation it would mean that you would eventually "travel" the entire distance around it and return to your starting point, zero

so if you continued to stack these plates for eternity, at what point would you return to having a stack of zero plates?

the answer is never, because if you define the point at 1/0 the numberline becomes finite, even worse if you make it a circle then continue to add numbers to zero you will come back to zero

 

[the_lone_wolf]

I'm in the same boat as you, gonna finish my physics soon, been here for 3 years...although I think I know a lot about things I had no idea of before.

definately, i was trying to say that during my course for every question i've answered, which is quite a few, it's brought up two more, the deeper you investigate physics, the deeper it seems to go. btw good luck in your finals

 

[kirovman]

definately, i was trying to say that during my course for every question i've answered, which is quite a few, it's brought up two more, the deeper you investigate physics, the deeper it seems to go. btw good luck in your finals

Yeah same here, but I stopped asking questions after things got hideous with derivations of Fermi gas energys and things like that.

Anyway, this subject always keeps my interest despite being difficult.

Good luck in your finals too. :cheers:

 

[Thorn of Death]

asking me to show that a blue ball is blue,

Sure, why not? go ahead and prove it. We know the balloon is blue, but how do we prove it?

I mentioned the reasons of my thought, and the reasons make sense to me. It doesn't NEED proofs to make sense. I'm not trying to officially change math. I just wanted to find the position of the undefined point, not define it.

Then, you go blindly sarcastec: oh look at the pretty pictures, they prove what I've said.

It wasn't even public. I was telling obergiest how well he'd done the image, and how well he understood me.

And I didn't even pretend to have proofs. I only posted the reasons it made sense to me. You, kept attacking me for not having proof, doing nothing at all to prove that it doesn't make sense.

if your circular numberline, with a defined value of "infinity" were a correct representation it would mean that you would eventually "travel" the entire distance around it and return to your starting point, zero

There, at least you're doing what I wanted you to. You're discussing why it doesn't make sense to you.

I'd give you the reason why I don't think your example goes against it. Because, there is no such thing as a defined value of infinite. It's like everyone kept saying. Inifinite isn't a number.

See? that's how to play nice.

 

[the_lone_wolf]

Sure, why not? go ahead and prove it. We know the balloon is blue, but how do we prove it?

you've missed the point of that example entirly, the whole point is that you are given the proof in the definition, i'll give you another example:

Q. Prove that a square has four sides.

A. The definition of "square" is:

"any artifact having a shape similar to a plane geometric figure with four equal sides and four right angles"

Therefore by definition a square has four sides.

you do not need to prove that a ball that you have been told is blue is blue, as it's given. in exactly the same way you don't need to prove that an extended real number line goes from "-infinity" to "infinity"

anyway, this is completely of topic and i think you're placing far to much emphasis on what was originally intended to prove a point in passing.

i mentioned the reasons of my thought, and the reasons make sense to me. It doesn't NEED proofs to make sense. I'm not trying to officially change math. I just wanted to find the position of the undefined point, not define it.

this is exactly the same as defining the point

You, kept attacking me for not having proof, doing nothing at all to prove that it doesn't make sense.

i have shown you why your conjecture is incorrect, you have stated you are saying that the undefined point is a hole in this "circle" (which by definition cannot exist with a hole) and i'm saying if thats the case then you don't have a circle, you have a line, a numberline, whose physiscal arrangement (semicircular, straight, spiral etc etc) is meaningless in terms of any real quantity - the only important thing about a numberline is ho far along it you've travelled between two numbers

You're discussing why it doesn't make sense to you.

i'm explaining why it doesn't make any mathematical sense, it's very frustrating, akin to trying to explain to a child why fire is hot, or the eath is round - in the end i'm thinking you just don't have the mathematical knowledge to understand what i'm saying, you don't even know what the exponential function is, which is why you seem to skirt around the maths and concentrate on the pictures, even though they show nothing, and if you were to analyze them quantitively they support my explaination of the flaws in your conjecture. you cannot post quoting mathematical functions and not expect not to have to prove what you are proposing

I'd give you the reason why I don't think your example goes against it. Because, there is no such thing as a defined value of infinite. It's like everyone kept saying. Inifinite isn't a number.

i've been saying this since my first post in this thread, infinity is a concept, which is why i've tried to refer to it as that, you even named this thread "My theory of defining the division by zero"

it's a simple case of logic here:

1. to have a circle of numbers you have to have a continous set of numbers around the edge

2. because of the discontinuity at 1/0 you not not have a continous set of numbers in the function

3. ergo you cannot have a number circle

4. a numberline has only one meaningful quality; that the distance you travel along it corresponds to a change in the value you are "at" on the line and the value you were "at"

5. ergo the "shape" of the numberline is meaningless

i can't think of a simpler way to write this, if you don't understand it say and i'll try to help, but don't just keep saying i don't understand what you are saying. you've said you can't prove your conjecture mathematically since it's not mathematically correct, then at least post your reasoning behind it, along the lines of how, in your mind, you came to the comclusions you have from the function y=1/x - then, at least, i'd have a better understanding of where you're going wrong

 

[Thorn of Death]

Yeah, that's good. I completely understand what you're thinking now.

I hope this wouldn't bother you. But look at the second picture giest posted. y increases as x gets closer to 0 from 1 in the equation y=1/x. So imagine y climbing up that line as it's value gets closer to the asymptote.

No problems until here?

Now imagine z decreasing without bound in the equation z=1/x, as x gets closer to zero from -1 this time. You'll see the value of z going down and down, as it gets closer to the asymptote, and as x gets closer to zero.

Any problems?

Now, as x actually reaches zero in both of them, we get the same undefined result.

ok?

Now, we take the value of y when x goes to the negative side. Where is y now? very close to the asymptote, but it's way down this time, right?

The same would happen with the z, when x reaches the positive side, z is no longer at the bottom of the line. It's way up now. right?


Any problems now? if there are, there's no need for the conclusion below.

Now, we come to the conclusion. I concluded that y and z crossed the same barrier, the asymptote, to the opposite side. The positive became negative and vice versa.

I hope now you understand my problem?

 

[Dinkleberry]

To hell with it all! 1/0 = -1/0 = 0/0 = 0^0 = 42

Like the guys said on the 1st page!

 

[the_lone_wolf]

I hope this wouldn't bother you. But look at the second picture giest posted. y increases as x gets closer to 0 from 1 in the equation y=1/x. So imagine y climbing up that line as it's value gets closer to the asymptote.

Now imagine z decreasing without bound in the equation z=1/x, as x gets closer to zero from -1 this time. You'll see the value of z going down and down, as it gets closer to the asymptote, and as x gets closer to zero.

up to here you make perfect sense, since you've don't nothing more than describe the behaviour of the y=1/x function

Now, as x actually reaches zero in both of them, we get the same undefined result.

this is where the flaw exists, you cannot have an "undefined result" - by having a result you have defined what it is, if something is undefined it can be no value, the value ofy for which y=1/0 simply does not exist

Now, we come to the conclusion. I concluded that y and z crossed the same barrier, the asymptote, to the opposite side. The positive became negative and vice versa.

thats the problem, they just don't, if they did then you'd have the issues that occur in the "stacking plates problem" i gave earlier. i think you're basing too much assumption on the diagrams, they show a mathematical quirk, i think the reason you've arrived at this cnclusion is that the only reason they appear as a circle is the choice of cordinates to plot the function and the viewpoint you've chosen to look at it from, if you plotted them in an (x,y) graph they would show nothing more than a straight line if viewed from above, you've plotted them in a circlular coordinate system an been suprised to see you almost get a circle when viewed from above, even though it's you who's caused the circularity by your choice of coordinate system. or to put it bluntly you, perhaps unknowingly, arranged the experiment to give the results you wanted

 

[ray_MAN]

Think of the speed of light. Nothing known is faster. When something reaches the speed of light, that something reaches infinite mass at an inifinite speed. There is an infinity out there... somewhere. Just wanted to set that straight. Continue. :imu:

 

[the_lone_wolf]

When something reaches the speed of light, that something reaches infinite mass at an inifinite speed.

haha, the speed of light is not infinite, so which is it? as an object tends toward the speed of light, it's relative (not actual) mass tends to infinity, you cannot travel at the speed of light because of this, as you ghet closer to the speed of light you require more and more energy to continue accelerating

 

[Tr0n]

Why go speed of light when there is other things that could possibly take you from point A to point B faster.

 

[Thorn of Death]

this is where the flaw exists, you cannot have an "undefined result" - by having a result you have defined what it is, if something is undefined it can be no value, the value ofy for which y=1/0 simply does not exist

Oh please. You know what I mean.

Anyway, I have no more to say. Thank you all for this brain exercise.

 

[the_lone_wolf]

Oh please. You know what I mean.

LMAO, i do know exactly what you mean, and i've tried to explain to you why it's wrong, you cannot define an undefined quantity, which is exactly what you've tried to do

Anyway, I have no more to say. Thank you all for this brain exercise.

now you're simply resorted to running away from the flaws in your conjecture instead of trying to understand why it's incorrect, but that's your choice, i won't continue on the subject unless you come back actually wanting answers

 

[ray_MAN]

Why go speed of light when there is other things that could possibly take you from point A to point B faster.

Name two.

 

[Tr0n]

Name two.

Hmmmmm...

Oh look a bird!

*runs*

 

[Dinkleberry]

Hmmmmm...

Oh look a bird!

*runs*

HAHAHA,
teleportation is now possible (at a really small level)

 

[ray_MAN]

HAHAHA,
teleportation is now possible (at a really small level)

At almost the sub-atomic level. We still have a ways to go. And besides, teleportation still takes time. It isn't 299,792,458 m/s.

 

[mad max 6]

1 divided by 0 is 1
if your not dividing it by anything, then your not dividing it. so its still 1

 

[kirovman]

1 divided by 0 is 1
if your not dividing it by anything, then your not dividing it. so its still 1

Uh? Great misjudgement...

Think of it this way. How many zeros does it take to make one? Infinite. Also, think of a division as an inverse multiplication, it is much simplier in a lot of circumstances.

1/1 is 1, which is NOT equal to 1/0.

1/0.000000001 = 100000000

So mathematically 1/0 = infinite.

I suggest you study some asyomptotic maths.

HAHAHA,
teleportation is now possible (at a really small level)

It's based on quantum entanglement, and it is simply transferring the quantum state of one quantum particle to another entangled one. It appears to happen "instantaneously", but the information can not be decoded faster than light speed.

As for moving from A to B without travelling the full path, that is little more than idle speculation, popularized by films like Event Horizon or whatever.

 

[Thorn of Death]

Yes, I have to admit I am running away, and for a good reason. This will have a bad effect on me while I'm at collage if it didn't end before I go, because I don't have an internet connection there.

Anyway, we're not exactly making any progress here, are we?

I'm not being blind(if I am) on purpose. I just think you're missing the point. It could be me whose missing the point, and I'd rather know that if I am.



However, if I was going to continue arguing, I'd say:

In the stacking plates example, no matter how many plates you stack, you'll never reach an undefined value, because we're not using devision.

And what's wrong with saying: the result of 1/0 is undefined?

If there's nothing wrong with it, then it's exactly what I meant to say: "we get the same undefined result."
Meaning that we don't get a defined result. I can't see anything wrong with that.

But I wouldn't say it, because I don't want the arguement to go on.

You are welcome to answer me, but do not give answers that would start an arguement please.