can someone please help in terms of telling me where i fucked up? ai can only do that so far.
or atleast ridicule me omg but someone?? can someone atleast take a look to atleast make fun of it?!

>>16700041 (OP)

>>16700042
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vd_n5iaUH04UDQfSyGB8LUwRTs7CqNyO/view?usp=sharing

>>16700041 (OP)
How is it any different from projective reals?
Division by zero is fine if you create a system where it works. Nobody ridicules people for doing that.
In what we usually use it's trivial to show that the operation is ambiguous which is why it's undefined and people who argue otherwise are ridiculed because it's such an obvious thing to show and understand.

>>16700074
its general, you dont need to define anything new or talk about arches or lines or whatever, if a teacher would get asked what dividing through zero equals he could just simply say "1 through 0 is fi/fi1" and thats it, no limits needed, no special circumstances or anything, this is just vanilla division through zero if nobody can show me holes that make this system categorically unfixable

Even if you define division by zero for some system you can't really get around the limit for n/x as x approaches 0 being undefined. And limits, unfortunately, get used all over math.

>>16700163
yeah thats completely unrelated to my proposal as far as i can tell

>>16700163
NTA but what do you mean it's unrelated? he said you can define zero however you want, you've defined it as an entirely new set that doesn't help us do any real mathematics. lets assume we use your system, we still have to take the limit at the edge of it, that is, at 0.

what does fi/fi1 look like on a cartesian plane? if your answer is you can't show it then you are taking the limit, and conceding that your system does nothing to solve the undefined operation of dividing by zero

>>16700415
meant for
>>16700166

>>16700415
alright then; uh, limit behaviour doesnt explicitly technically divide by zero as far as i know, it more like a shadow, looking around it and predicting the behaviour.

my system makes explicit what these very specific canonical ways of dividing through 0 , if you are dealing with limits, interpret this fi system as tags i guess? it wont hinder anything you have already if that was your concern.

you can also do this same math concerning limits and whatever inside the fi space btw, idk if im hitting my wits end here or if nobody understands what im saying

>>16700041 (OP)
oh my gosh i think that fi : 0 is also in need of a solution, i CANT just say "haha yeah you can divide by zero now but ONLY ONCE" so fi : 0 = 2fi.

mind you that the ordinary 0 here is actually 10 so 0rdinary zeros are pretty cool now.
then you can do (1)fi : 20 and recieve 3fi?

>>16700555
fuck what about normal numbers

>>16700555
oh it doesnt show the chiron symbol on this site, great, whatever ig, time to hang myself then

>>16700041 (OP)
Mathlet here, please critique my take.

Close your eyes and visualise a light wooden table, on which is a small pile of red crayons. Attach a label to this pile, marked 15, for the number of crayons in the pile.
First, represent 3x5 (or, Three lots of Five). Taking one crayon at a time from the pile, slowly form 3 piles. Each pile contains 5 crayons. 3x5=15
Secondly, while keeping in mind that Division is the inverse polarity of Multiplication, represent 15/3 (or, How Many Times Does 3 Go Into 15). Gather all the red crayons back into the pile of 15. Now, take them out 3 at a time, and form a new pile with each lot, until none remain. You will have 5 piles of 3 red crayons. 15/3=5.

Now for the interesting part. Gather the crayons once more into the 15 pile.

Divide it by 0.

0 is not nothing, it is everything.
0 is the starting point from with all division proceeds. It is completion. Just like Pi fits to all circles, 0 fits to all things, yet is is more than the total composition of everything it contains.

>>16700601
im honestly also a mathlet but it doesnt really matter if division through 0 isnt reconcilable with the real world
fucking imaginary numbers exist bro,
hell, NEGATIVE NUMBERS like, they do NOT exist in the real world

>>16700041 (OP)
You're an idiot that has no understanding of either the purpose of the historical development of mathematics relating to it.
The fact the use the slopbot in this is more then telling.
Go read a book pseud.

>>16700654
But the purpose of mathematics is to reflect and represent reality. For example, a perfected mathematical language would be identical to the logic and syntax of reality.
If imaginary numbers exist - we should re-label them.
Negative numbers are easily represented through a wavelength. Everything about the middle point is positive, everything below is negative. But don't conflate negatives with 0, as a negative number exists (consists of the same "stuff") just as much as positive ones do. Otherwise, they would be zero.

>>16700041 (OP)
You're trying to invent ideas from abstract algebra but doing it clumsily. Without looking too closely it seems like you're basically just taking a direct sum of algebras and getting confused about the resulting object. There is no need to do any of this and there's probably a contradiction. Go read an algebra book.