Ecmandu wrote: phyllo wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I forgot...
Explain to me how division isn't the reciprocal of multiplication???
James already addressed that:
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.
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
Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them (and you) - Ecmandu's Rule.
Ecmandu's second rule: calculate the set of your argument upon itself before you argue!
Stratification of motivational systems towards conspicuous consumption or extraneous drama cause all human ills - that was the most important thing you'll ever read in your life. - Ecmandu
The biggest problem in life... That more than one person wants the same thing! Solve this, and you have beaten the demon of life!