Page **1** of **4**

### Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:01 pm**
by **Ecmandu**

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

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:54 pm**
by **The Golden Turd**

No, 0 รท 0 = Something. You can't focus on nothing.

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Wed Dec 07, 2016 3:35 pm**
by **surreptitious57**

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

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:01 pm**
by **James S Saint**

Ecmandu wrote:31 divided 0 times is just still 31

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]Ecmandu wrote:0 divided 31 times is just still 0 (still nothing to divide)

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

[31 * 0 = 0]Ecmandu wrote:0 divided by 0 (nothing not divided) is just 0

0/0 = 0 divided into

0 pieces - still makes no sense because it is "indeterminate",

[0 * ?anything? = 0]Ecmandu wrote: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

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.

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Wed Dec 07, 2016 5:33 pm**
by **Meno_**

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

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:09 pm**
by **Ecmandu**

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!!

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:34 pm**
by **James S Saint**

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

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:25 pm**
by **phyllo**

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

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:29 pm**
by **James S Saint**

phyllo wrote: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.

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:46 pm**
by **surreptitious57**

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

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:58 pm**
by **The Golden Turd**

Phyllo, explain.

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:04 am**
by **surreptitious57**

He has explained and also that is it in its simplest form

What is it about his explanation you do not understand

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:48 am**
by **The Golden Turd**

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.

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:51 am**
by **Ecmandu**

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

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:53 am**
by **MagsJ**

James S Saint wrote:phyllo wrote: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.

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:57 am**
by **surreptitious57**

Turd Ferguson wrote:

I already know your wrong what matters now is the specifics in how phyllo is right

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

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:59 am**
by **The Golden Turd**

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.

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:05 am**
by **Ecmandu**

Turd Ferguson wrote: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??

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:10 am**
by **surreptitious57**

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

0 / 31 = infinity [ nothing into something can go ]

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:15 am**
by **surreptitious57**

Ecmandu wrote:

31 divided 0 times is just still 31 No

0 divided 31 times is just still 0 [ still nothing to divide ] No

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:20 am**
by **surreptitious57**

Ecmandu wrote:

31 divided 0 times is just still 31 31 / 1 = 31

0 divided 31 times is just still 0 [ still nothing to divide ] 0 / 0 = 0

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:21 am**
by **Ecmandu**

surreptitious57 wrote:31 / 0 = nonsense [ something into nothing cannot go ]

0 / 31 = infinity [ nothing into something can go ]

31 divided no times is still 31

No quantity divided "31" times is still no quantity ...

Maybe you can be kind and call the latter a virtual or imaginary number to your stance. Regardless, dividing a lack of quantity 31 times does not create a quantity, not an undefined

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:21 am**
by **The Golden Turd**

Not if the whole is Dyad Ecamndu. Are you doing the recount for Jill Stein Ecmandu? You including new votes in there count?

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:25 am**
by **Ecmandu**

Turd Ferguson wrote:Not if the whole is Dyad Ecamndu. Are you doing the recount for Jill Stein Ecmandu? You including new votes in there count?

Prove that a whole meta concept such a dyad can only be dyad and not triad as well.

We can easily abstract "group". (Monad) as anything we want!

### Re: Dividing by zero

Posted:

**Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:31 am**
by **surreptitious57**

Ecmandu wrote:surreptitious57 wrote:

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

0 / 31 = infinity [ nothing into something can go ]

31 divided no times is still 31

31 not being divided at all is

not 31 being divided by 0

31 = 31 [ not being divided at all ] but 31 / 0 = nonsense