Dividing by zero

31 divided 0 times is just still 31

0 divided 31 times is just still 0 (still nothing to divide)

What this means is that

0 divided by 0 (nothing not divided) is just 0

Everyone who parrots that 0 divided by 0 is undefined, has just learned how to parrot math …

They don’t actually understand the simplicity of the true answer

No, 0 ÷ 0 = Something. You can’t focus on nothing.

When the numerator is zero and the denominator is a positive integer the answer is infinity not zero
Even where the denominator is also zero the answer can still be infinity as well as zero and also one

You are mis-reading it.

31/2 = 31 divided into 2 pieces. - each piece = 15.5, [2 * 15.5 = 31]
31/0 = 31 divided into 0 pieces. - makes no sense and thus = “undefined” (not “infinity”), [0 * ?nothing? = 31]

0/31 = 0 divided into 31 pieces - each piece is still zero, [31 * 0 = 0]

0/0 = 0 divided into 0 pieces - still makes no sense because it is “indeterminate”, [0 * ?anything? = 0]

Well … someone didn’t.

In hyperreal notation, those same numbers can be resolved because more information is within the notation. Each “0” has a degree of zero that it is, not merely an ambiguous nothing.

That’s because 0 is not nothing. Or rather, nothing is not = 0.

Oh c’mon you guys…

Zero is the lack of quantity.

Dividing a lack of quantity still gives you a lack of quantity.

A lack of quantity dividing a quantity just leaves you with the initial quantity.

Honestly folks!!

Then divide 2 apples into a lack of quantity of apples.

If 31 divided by 0 is 31 and 31 divided by 1 is also 31, then logically 0=1

Oh please don’t get him started on that again. :confused:

0 / 31 = infinity
31 / 0 = nonsense

0 / 0 = 0 and 1 and infinity
[ so three different answers]

Any positive integer / 0 = nonsense
Any negative integer / 0 = nonsense

0 / any positive integer = infinity
0 / any negative integer = nonsense

0 / anything above 0 = infinity
0 / anything below 0 = nonsense

Phyllo, explain.

He has explained and also that is it in its simplest form
What is it about his explanation you do not understand

That is up to Phyllo to ask. He is making a asserting similar to mine, I want to cross examine it. Cross examining you doesn’t get me into a place of potentially grasping my own position better, I already know your wrong, what matters now is the specifics in how Phyllo is right.

I’m really sorry to burst your bubble phyllo, and in the process maybe make you all mad at me …

If you divide something by 1… You simply (aside from the concept of equality) split into two pieces…

The problem is you guys parrot shit instead of thinking it through …

Math gets people as angry as sports, but I’m not lying.

You guys interpret dividing something by 1 as dividing it by itself, however 31 pieces of 31 is not the same as 31!!

You guys have been brainwashed!

Continue, and I’ll keep replying

:laughing:

So you agree with phyllo and I agree with phyllo but I am still wrong and he is right

One doesn’t = Whole

This is a presumption One is always monistic. One is a Dyad is 2 and 1 simultaneously, but not three as the two states are presumptions of states of being and not actuality, so are not mutually in play upon the other simultaneously, by themselves.

That makes no sense whatsoever…

You’ve been reading too much Greek philosophy!!!

One triad is also a whole and three…

What’s your point btw??

31 / 0 = nonsense [ something into nothing cannot go ]
0 / 31 = infinity [ nothing into something can go ]