Dividing by zero

0 divided by 0 is also 1 and infinity so three answers for one sum

Did you read my bananas post??

Zero is the abstraction of “placeholder”

So when I say I have zero bananas…

Is that absurd??

We do it everyday!!

We however, cannot possibly utter that sentence unless bananas exist!!!

I’m actually not trying to be controversial here!!!

I’m saying there are DIFFERENT axiomatic schemes on the fundamentals - not just one!!

Ecmandu this is getting silly. Now everyone is telling you that you are wrong but you are not listening to them. You have to realise
that maths is useless unless there is universal agreement on the function of its axioms and everyone here know this apart from you

If you say you have no bananas, it means precisely that: that you have no bananas. It does not mean there are bananas existing elsewhere.

If I say I have no dragons, it does not mean dragons exist elsewhere. We know dragons do not exist.

See how stupid you are?

If you can imagine something that does not mean it must be real.

And I do not see how any of this is relevant.

Oh my…

There are imaginary dragons. And as you learn more about existence, the imaginary is real somewhere…

sigh

Something contingent here.

The concept of existence Becomesrelevant issue here.
The consciessness which makes meaning manifest in
this context, brings the patent theory of meaning to the fore, thereby ‘existence’ gains meaning.

Which brings to the fore the the idea of 0 as symbolic of nothingness. A nothingness which has a double value: a conceptual nothingness, and a functional nothingness.

How does this relate to consciousness of the void qua nothingness, as a lack of existence?

The significance of this train of thought lies in another difference, but one which subsumed the former, vis: conscience as a self differentiating function, or as a pre-existing field of possibility.

In the later case, the field or whatever you designate it, ‘exists’ prior, not in the temporal sense, of course,
but in the sense of a a shift away from a quantifiable difference.

This difference is evident in the sharp difference in the awareness of human beings away from animals.

The quanta(fiability) has changed the quality of awareness to a high degree and has progressed to the awareness of the in-it’s self, as a probable field.

In this sense, the idea of 0 , as nothingness, has gained a material substance.

You can divide by this, but it is always self consuming, and always results with the same result, = 1. It is the most basic logical equation, the law of identity.

Jerkey …

You’re a lot smarter than these guys .

It’s actually more complex than that.

This is the third time I’ve said it in this thread…

The foundation of math has more than one axiom set

I hate to agree with you for the appearance of a necessary presumption, but if you don’t get side-railed, then there is no danger of a misinterpretation.

I’m not a mathematician so bear with my inexperience… but I don’t think that anybody here has actually stipulated which definition of “0” they are working with?

If 0 is understood as a Robinson infinitesimal in non-standard analysis, then 2/0 does indeed equal infinity, and 0/2 does indeed equal 0 (I think. I’m not pretending I understand non-standard analysis - I read about it in a book). On the other hand, if 0 is considered as “the null set”, the expression 0/2 is simply not admissible because the null set does not contain 2 subsets. (In fact you might like to argue, just to be mischievous, that to be divisible by 2, the null set would have to contain three subsets - can you guess why?)

Mathematics is another language altogether, and what you expressed pretty well describes the philosophical underpinnings of the different meanings of 0. Mathematically, 0 deals with value in the abstract, whereas 0=nothingness deals with the
s
ubstantial, philosophical underpinnings of meaning.

So we are in essence speaking in similar subsumed equivalencies.

OK guys, I’ll buy you another round of drinks, and leave you to it!

Ahh… someone with at least a tiny bit of education…

That could be true except to refer to hyperreal numbers requires that one use hyperreal notation or at very least specify such. A variety of hyperreal notations have been offered by pretty well known mathematicians. I have my own notation (for philosophical reasons). And another thing that is required, although unknown to many mathematicians, is logic. Mathematics is a subset of logic and cannot defy logic in its construction without becoming incoherent and useless.

Again, if using proper notation, “0” is undefined because the “degree of 0” isn’t being specified.
0.000…:000 / 2 would still be 0.000…:000
or my own notation:
[0.000…:0R] / 2 = [0.000…:0R] {R == “eternally Remaining amount for sake of non-ending decimals”}.

That is an excellent observation, although I would disagree with your logic.

One cannot divide 2 by a null set, because the statement itself makes no sense (hence is “undefined”). But dividing nothing yields nothing, always. The number of parts requested is irrelevant. Thus;
0/2 = 0, just as standard analysis proposes.

I am curious of your reasoning. :sunglasses:

it is indeed possible to divide with zero, to do so you must lose the math mindset and think of zero as a starting point.

How can you divide two apples into a “starting point”?

Infinity and undefined start being really important when you hit calculus. But it’s not just that. Programming is hot. Trying to argue that X/0 is anything other than “undefined” will upend any programming language.

Absent theory where I’m not an expert (though I could talk to some), what practical gains would be made by a not-undefined answer?

Not having to handle all of those exceptions, would be nice. :sunglasses:

So you admit to reifying math.

That’s an easy mistake to make. Especially if you only know enough to be dangerous.

But breaking a tool to make it useless to those that use it but approachable to those who don’t seems like a really ass-backwards approach.

I’m not one of those trying to, nor wanting to, change it. I am the one trying to explain the sense in the original intent.

Who cares about original intent?

math is not pear and apples. to get somewhere in these things you need to think outside of the box. starting point is a abstract term in lack of better words for it. zero is holy grail of mathemathics but i feel only coz of a designer error where everything is this and that and cannot be anything else. its not. my intuiton tells me that zero is something you can see. like the thing that makes black holes or something like that…im tellin u, my intuition i rarely wrong.