## Dividing by zero

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

### Re: Dividing by zero

Ecmandu wrote:I forgot...

Explain to me how division isn't the reciprocal of multiplication???
James wrote:
Their notation defines multiplication and division as inverse operations. Thus if a/b = c, then c * b = a by DECLARED DEFINITION of the notation. So in their notation, you are claiming that 31 * 0 = 31.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10634
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

Ecmandu wrote:I forgot...

Explain to me how division isn't the reciprocal of multiplication???

Oh... And before you bother me by saying that multiplication has no order of operations and division does...

How is division not reciprocal in the context of that order of operations??

Explain all this to me
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 6937
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

phyllo wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I forgot...

Explain to me how division isn't the reciprocal of multiplication???
James wrote:
Their notation defines multiplication and division as inverse operations. Thus if a/b = c, then c * b = a by DECLARED DEFINITION of the notation. So in their notation, you are claiming that 31 * 0 = 31.

Thanks phyllo...

What about reciprocal do you both not understand!?!?!

Of course the multipliers will be the inverse of the dividers!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 6937
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

What about reciprocal do you both not understand!?!?!

Of course the multipliers will be the inverse of the dividers!
Perhaps we would understand better if you wrote that out in math notation.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10634
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

Ecmandu wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I forgot...

Explain to me how division isn't the reciprocal of multiplication???
James wrote:
Their notation defines multiplication and division as inverse operations. Thus if a/b = c, then c * b = a by DECLARED DEFINITION of the notation. So in their notation, you are claiming that 31 * 0 = 31.

Thanks phyllo...

What about reciprocal do you both not understand!?!?!

Of course the multipliers will be the inverse of the dividers!

I want to comment on this more, because my sentence was a throwaway sentence.

You have to understand reciprocal more...

It's not simply changing back and forth...

The actual structure of the rules are inverse between divisors and multipliers.

You're applying multiplier rules to divisor rules instead of doing an actual inversion.

Yes, there is no way that 31*0 = 31

(31 zero times)

However, 31 times 0, is 31 . 31 0 times is 0. This is a very precise point about your notation.

To look closer at order of operations...

0 31 times is zero.

0 times 31 is zero.

You can't multiply zero without it just staying zero.

But somehow... You can divide zero and develop undefined???

The order of operations for multiplication change if the 31 is first as above
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 6937
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

I edited the above post for clarity
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 6937
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

If you have a rectangular piece of land, the area cannot be different when multiplying length times width versus multiplying width times length.

However, you are saying the area of a strip of land which 0 feet by 31 feet has two areas depending on the how you do the multiplication ... either 0 square feet or 31 square feet.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10634
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

phyllo wrote:If you have a rectangular piece of land, the area cannot be different when multiplying length times width versus multiplying width times length.

However, you are saying the area of a strip of land which 0 feet by 31 feet has two areas depending on the how you do the multiplication ... either 0 square feet or 31 square feet.

It's the way the language works...

31 square feet multiplied by no quantity is still 31 square feet.

No quantity multiplied by 31 square feet is still no quantity.

Multiplication also has an order of operations, a subtle point missed only when it comes to zero.

Think it through!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 6937
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

My mistake...

You said feet, not square feet.

So the question here is...

If you stipulate 31 feet exist without width, can it exist?

The issue here is that in order to first establish 31 feet, it has to exist in some way, so width is implied in the initial formulation, not matter how minuscule ...

What happens with order of operations...

If you multiply a length first, even by nothing, it squares at it's own length ... The zero flips to the only other variable. It can't be zero, because it's an existent.

This is declared immediately when you start off "31 feet times x"

The 31 feet already exist in order of operations, the logical multiplier is 31 feet
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 6937
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

I'll try to simplify this...

Order of operations is that of you initially establish a quantity, it has to remain quantified for the purpose of the next operation. If the next operation is zero, the quantity remains ...

When dealing with multiplication, there is a squaring of the line to keep it's identity (only variable there is)

Divided by, leaves the initial quantity, but it must also be squared to keep it's initial existential form.

It's an order of operations procedure that only applies to zero

It's implied that if 7 feet exist in one direction, that 7 feet must exist in the other direction in order for it to be quantified as an initial presentation.

If the initial presentation is zero, then zero is the multiplicative sum
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 6937
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

A line has no substance, so no.
trogdor

Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED

Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

### Re: Dividing by zero

Ecmandu wrote:31 square feet multiplied by no quantity is still 31 square feet.

No quantity multiplied by 31 square feet is still no quantity.

Again, still, you are merely reading it in a convoluted way.

It is how many TIMES the 31 is taken. The 31 is taken 0 times, and thus 31 * 0 = 0, because no 31 is taken into the final sum.
By the associative property, also 0 * 31 = 0, but because 0 taken 31 times still sums to zero.
In one case, you have NO 31's. And in the other case, you have 31 zeros.

It is THEIR language. Learn to read what THEY mean by THEIR notation. The fact that you can distort it to read something different is irrelevant. You can do the same with any language.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Dividing by zero

James S Saint wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:31 square feet multiplied by no quantity is still 31 square feet.

No quantity multiplied by 31 square feet is still no quantity.

Again, still, you are merely reading it in a convoluted way.

It is how many TIMES the 31 is taken. The 31 is taken 0 times, and thus 31 * 0 = 0, because no 31 is taken into the final sum.
By the associative property, also 0 * 31 = 0, but because 0 taken 31 times still sums to zero.
In one case, you have NO 31's. And in the other case, you have 31 zeros.

It is THEIR language. Learn to read what THEY mean by THEIR notation. The fact that you can distort it to read something different is irrelevant. You can do the same with any language.

That's exceedingly clear James.

I'm doing 31 is taken times 0

And you're doing 31 is taken 0 times

Now we've clarified

The way the language is used can certainly facilitate my perspective on multiplication and division without twisting or convoluting language.

Your interpretation of the language is not the normative btw, so I think you can forgive me using normative language and arguing from there.

We don't generally say 31 4 times, we say 31 times 4
Last edited by Ecmandu on Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 6937
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

Ecmandu wrote:Your interpretation of the language is not the normative

It most certainly is, but you go do your independent thing.
But also remember as they say, "God has no respect for the individual".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Dividing by zero

James S Saint wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Your interpretation of the language is not the normative

It most certainly is, but you go do your independent thing.
But also remember as they say, "God has no respect for the individual".

I edited my post but it didn't get through...

We don't say 31 4 times, we say 31 times 4
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 6937
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

Attend more to what is meant by people than what is said by people, and you will make far more progress.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Dividing by zero

James S Saint wrote:Attend more to what is meant by people than what is said by people, and you will make far more progress.

So you're saying that there's no value in the distinction of:

1.) 31 times 4
2.) 31 4 times

?

It's not an issue until you hit zero...

31 0 times is zero
31 times zero implies the existent not being acted upon...

Which is the one people always use??

If everyone means what you explained, then why don't they use language to speak to it?

Math has been here for thousands of years from logiticians!!!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 6937
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

We don't say 31 4 times
That is called Reverse Polish Notation notation and it's equivalent to the 'usual' way of saying it which is called infix notation.
Reverse Polish notation (RPN) is a mathematical notation in which every operator follows all of its operands, in contrast to Polish notation (PN), which puts the operator before its operands. It is also known as postfix notation and does not need any parentheses as long as each operator has a fixed number of operands. The description "Polish" refers to the nationality of logician Jan Łukasiewicz,[1] who invented (prefix) Polish notation in the 1920s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10634
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

Thanks phyllo,

Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 6937
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

There is no difference in the results produced by those notations.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10634
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

There is no difference in the results produced by those notations.

How can you not see it?!?!

31 not being acted upon is still 31

Hrmmm ....
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 6937
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

Ecmandu wrote:

There is no difference in the results produced by those notations.

How can you not see it?!?!

31 not being acted upon is still 31

Hrmmm ....

Let me explain this in a different articulation consistent with what I said above ...

Zero not only removes itself, but the operator...

There are two ways to look at this if zero is first...

Zero is being acted upon with 31 units... Which leaves 31 units

OR!!!

Zero is a not... In the sense that zero is not being acted upon 31 times, which leaves zero

These types of subtleties for my mind are extremely important.

I think James spoke too soon (clarify -right there in your sig) when he suggested I blow off language completely.

How else do we clarify James??
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 6937
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

X divided by Y means X number of elements equally distributed across Y number of groups. The result of division is not the number of elements that remain in the original, undivided, pool of elements but the number of elements in each one of the divisions.

31 divided by 0 means 31 elements equally distributed across 0 number of groups. How many elements do we get in every group after such an operation? But there are no groups -- there are 0 groups -- so we can't really answer. Therefore, the result is undefined.

Ecmandu is speaking of a different operation -- not division -- and he does so because he thinks that words precede concepts rather than the other way around.

Division is not a subtractive operation. You do not remove elements from the starting pool of elements using certain method then count how many elements remain. That's not division.

Similarly, multiplication is not an additive operation.

If our language implies it, then that's the problem of language, and you shouldn't confuse it for a mathematical problem.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable

Magnus Anderson
Philosopher

Posts: 3694
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

### Re: Dividing by zero

It's not that easy.

The 31 groups are existents, acting upon zero doesn't change that. You can use the phraseology "distributing into x number of groups"

But the existent remains.

I'll simply say this: there are multiple ways conceptually to axiomate math
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 6937
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Dividing by zero

31 elements, not groups/divisions.

There are no existents, no states, in multiplication and division. You are speaking of different operations -- ones you made up, invented, imagined, created in your head.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable

Magnus Anderson
Philosopher

Posts: 3694
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

PreviousNext