Dividing by zero

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

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!!!

That is called Reverse Polish Notation notation and it’s equivalent to the ‘usual’ way of saying it which is called infix notation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation

Thanks phyllo,

Read my last post about meaning, just above yours

I read it.

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??

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.

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

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.

Ok we’ll work with the term “elements”

If 31 elements are distributed equally into (amongst) zero groups… How is that not either 31 or 0???

Undefined is the least likely option of the three, 31 is the most likely option.

What you didn’t get through to you, and I thought I was clear…

Math has more than one axiomatic system foundationally…

I don’t know why that bothers you

Because the result of division is the number of elements within each one of the groups. We are counting the number of elements within groups, not the number of elements outside of these groups. When there are no groups, there is nothing to count, therefore, the result is undefined.

You are accusing people of being brainwashed simply because you do not understand that you are working with different, non-conventional, operations.

Ok, that’s better said.

If I say I have no bananas…

It’s actually a placeholder for bananas that still exist somewhere.

Bananas still exist in order to assert them in some way.

Does that help?

31 elements divided [ distributed equally ] into 0 groups is nonsense as it does not compute so cannot be 31 or 0

Anything divided by 0 [ apart from 0 ] is nonsense [ integers / reals / irrationals / complex ]

0 divided by 0 is 0 so is not nonsense but everything else is

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