wow

>dividing by zero
wow

>>16722745
there is no division in that image, pseud.

>>16722745
a and b can be any number, they don't have to be 0

>>16722748
>divides both sides by (a-b) which is zero
mediocre troll attempt

>>16722754
you still haven't explained why you can divide by any number in the real line except for 0

>>16722759
Picrel is copied from wikipedia because it is a good explanation. Not that it matters, you will pivot onto something else to argue about. I will not reply.

>>16722721 (OP)
how do you reach 1+1=1 from (1+1)(1-1)=1(1-1)?

>>16722792
a and b can be any number, why do you assume that both are 1?

>>16722795
because it starts with a=b, it can be any number, but they're the same value. that's how the substitution property of equality works
(a+a)(a-a)=a(a-a)
(b+b)(b-b)=b(b-b)
(b+a)(a-b)=a(a-b)
(a+a)(a-a)=b(b-b)
(1+1)(1-1)=1(1-1)
(2+2)(2-2)=2(2-2)
(3+3)(3-3)=3(3-3)

>>16722788
is this bait?
>wikipedia
>overreliance on formality
>literally zero intuitive argument for why division by zero is forbidden
a literal child can understand addition and multiplication as presented. they can even understand subtraction. they cannot understand why division by zero is forbidden. if children can understand these fundamental rules of arithmetic (i'm talking literal 6 year olds), then you should be able to justify why division by zero is forbidden to this six year old. this is why overreliance on these formalities is a coping copout.

>>16722821
division by 0 allows too much shenanigans.
a/b=c then c*b=a

assuming a is not equal to 0 then
a/0=c then c*0=a
but anything times 0 equals 0, so there is no number c that multiplied by 0 equals a non-zero value a

as a denominator approaches 0, the value of the fraction approaches infinity 1/0.1=10 1/0.01=100 1/0.0000001=10000000...
so if division by 0 results in an infinity which is also undefined then
1/0=infinity
2/0=infinity
pi/0=infinity
1/0=2/0=pi0
1=2=pi=all values

>>16722836
>still relying on formality
yes, we get it you fucking autist. that is not what you're being tasked to do. you're being tasked to explain it to a six year old who is capable of understanding arithmetic

>>16722821
Zero is not a value, but a symbol representing a lack of any value.
You can’t divide by nothing
It’s nonsense
I understood this as a child. Maybe you weren’t a very smart child.

>>16722849
my explanation is arithmetic.
or am i dealing with a 6 year old who knows division, but nothing else about the manipulation of numbers.
alright, so then lets say we have a pie, we split it among 3 people, so there are 3 pieces making up the whole pie, and each person gets 1 piece. so 1 pieces + 1 piece + 1 piece = 1 whole pie

if we divide the pie into 0 pieces, how many times can we add 0 pieces to 0 pieces before we get a number greater equivalent to 1 whole entire pie?

>>16722857
6 year olds learn about variables? you're full of shit.
>>16722856
you misunderstand. i have a bachelor's in math and a phd in physics. i understand the arguments you're giving and can even reproduce them in my sleep. the point is that they're all post-hoc asspulls that don't provide any intuition.
>zero is not a value
so f(0) exists for no function since zero can never be a value. understood.

>>16722849
I know you're having a laugh, but:
If you have 12 apples and want to share them between yourself and two other people, you each get 12/3 =4 apples.

If you instead take those 12 apples and throw them in the trash, how many apples does each person get? Well, you give each of the 0 people 12/0 apples and... wait, you didn't give anyone any apples. You threw them in the trash. Obviously you didn't generate infinity apples in this process. But it's also meaningless to say you gave zero people zero apples so calling the answer 0 is also meaningless.
Dividing by zero eliminates all context from the division you're performing so if you see division bu zero happen your results are equally meaningless.

>>16722907
>If you instead take those 12 apples and throw them in the trash, how many apples does each person get?
Each person receives zero apples.

>>16722821
A/B=C implies that A is B times C aka A=B*C

And that's a two-way thing

If you divide by 0, let's say 3 then 3/0=C for some value C. However that value C has to satisfy that 3=0*C. Which number multiplied by 0 gives 3? None, hence you can't divide by zero.

When you start with a=b from that equation follows that a-b=0 so when you divide by (a-b) you are dividing by 0

>>16722919
>But it's also meaningless to say you gave zero people zero apples so calling the answer 0 is also meaningless.

>>16722893
the intuition should be if you distribute your 12 apples up among 0 people, then there's no possible way for those 0 people with 0 apples to combine their nonexistent apples to get 12 apples. you have 12 apples, but the 0 people with 0 apples are completely out of the equation.
0 just doesn't compute.

>>16722920
>overreliance on formality
nope.
>>16722907
>>16722922
i give zero people zero applies every day i exist. it amounts to zero applies. listen, i know why mathematicians choose to say 0/0 is undefined. what i am telling you is that there is a good basis for defining it as zero. and with your first descriptor, you're making an argument that any nonzero number divided by zero could reasonably be defined as zero.

it's either that or the intuitionist definition of division provided to the laypeople is straightup wrong. a different, slightly more radical approach to take is the finitist approach, and if there is no infinity then division by zero (for any number, including zero) can be defined to return zero. this wouldn't break mathematics as much as you think, despite how much you may initially seethe.

>>16722951
>overreliance on formality
So you're either 12 or trolling, got it.

>>16722957
given your proclivity toward math, i'm going to assume you have some problem with the general public's inability to understand basic math. would you believe me if i told you that's because they actually understand math up until they learn division, and the way it's taught is absolutely dog shit that builds no intuition, and they check out? i cannot fucking tell you how many times i have students (physics) who tell me they used to be good at math, and when prodded, admit it fell apart around 4th grade when they were learning division, and then subsequently had to learn long division and other formalities in 5th and 6th grade. this is well studied by math educators as well.
>but it's just the high school teachers that are doing a shit job of teaching it!
no, they're echoing the same standardized, formalized soundbites that you and your ilk do. unless you can learn to step away from your formalities, and stop providing ad-hoc descriptors of what's essentially an "oopsie" in mathematics, the general population will forever continue checking out of learning math, talking about how much they hate it, and for many say how they used to like it and eventually stopped. the problem is on people like you who cannot properly explain it.

or maybe you don't care, and are happy with a bunch of useful idiots in the public. in which case, you deserve a bullet.

>>16722951
>i give zero people zero applies every day i exist
You also give zero people 12 apples. 13 too for that matter. Hell, you give zero people a googolplex apples every single second. These are not meaningful statements which is what I mean when I say division by zero removes all context by which division can even take place.

>>16722968
if people say they're good at math, but only meant addition and subtraction, they should just admit the truth that for the majority of their time in school, they were bad at math.

>>16722972
I have 100% nothing

>>16722951
It doesn't practically change much as the alternative is it being undefined, but using division as the multiplicative inverse manipulating symbols is still invalid when the denominator is 0. Step 4 in the OP assumes x(a-b)/(a-b) = x when (a-b) = 0. This remains untrue even if you "patch" division by zero in the manner you describe. It just zeroes out both sides of the equation (which you could could have done anyway after step 3).

For writing code, it's a nice way to stop crashes if you're not especially worried about why a division by 0 happened. For mathematics, it adds axioms for no additional benefit. There may be some non-contrived way it breaks things more than leaving it undefined does, but I can't think of one immediately.

>>16722745
TWICE.
If a + b = b , then a = 0 and also b = 0 by the first equation, so in the last step OP divided again by 0.

>>16722721 (OP)
[math] \displaystyle
(-2)^{\frac{6}{2}} \neq (-2)^{3}
[/math]

>>16722759
Because [math]\mathbb{R}[/math] is a field.
The only mathematical structure where division by zero is permissible is the zero ring (which the image in the OP basically shows).

>>16722759
That has nothing to do with the error (zero-division) in OP's calculation.

If a and b are gonna be equal then a^2-b^2 is always gonna be zero, so your function is always zero for a and b. So zero = zero. Lol.

>>16722721 (OP)
Adding the stipulation that a = b changes the meaning of everything.

But let's assume that a =1 and b = 2.

(1+2)(1-2) = 2(1-2).
This says:
(3)(-1) = (2-2).

This is a false equivalence so (a+b)(a-b) does not equal b(a-b) except when a and b are equal. So you can't use it in the context they are different you have to assume a and b are both zero for this to work I think lol.

>>16722968
>I'm too stupid to understand so you're wrong
cool b8 m8

>>16722856
Then why can you multiply by "the lack of any value"? Your explanation makes no sense.

>>16722893
>i have a bachelor's in math and a phd in physics
No you don't.

>>16723559
Say you have a number of boxes that contain 4 apples each. If you have 3 boxes, you have 3 * 4 apples in total. How many apples do you have if you have 0 boxes of apples? 0 *4 = 0 apples. The concept of multiplying by zero is quite intuitive.

>>16722721 (OP)
>>16722745
>treating every zero the same
wow

>>16722721 (OP)
The hardest part of proving that 0=1 is hiding the division by zero, in the same way that the hardest part of making a perpetual motion machine is hiding the battery.

>>16722721 (OP)
a-b would be 0 since they're the same thing so (a-b)/(a-b) = 0/0 because by definition a and b are the same thing.
i.e 5-5 = 0 4-4 = 0 etc

>>16722805
> (1+1)(1-1)=1(1-1)
you fucked up here

[math] \displaystyle
\sum_{k=m}^{n}k=\dfrac{(n+m)(n-m+1)}{2} \\
s=m+(m+1)+...+(n-1)+n \\
s= n + (n-1)+...+(m+1+m) \\
2s=(n+m)(n-m+1) \\
\sum_{k=4}^{7}k=\dfrac{(7+4)(7-4+1)}{2} =\frac{11\cdot 4}{2}=22=4+5+6+7\\

[/math]

>>16722721 (OP)
Use line segments instead of algebra

>>16722821
>You should be able to justify...
>NO, NOT FORMALLY THAT DOESN'T COUNT
What?

>>16722721 (OP)
a=b
a-b=0
the end

>you can't divide by zero because... YOU JUST CAN'T, OKAY??

>>16724625
>I can't understand it so it must not be real

>>I can't understand it so it must not be real

>>16722752
Looking at this, a has to be zero in the "a+b=b" bit, which by the axiomatic definition up top means b has to be zero too.
The end result "2=1!!" was always horseshit, obviously b=0 before that.

>>16724625
>>16724639
>>16724651
Consider multiplying by zero instead: it's easy to see that it's not reasonable to equate things by reducing both things to nothing.

>>16722721 (OP)
Perception. Awareness of one object, be it entity or particle, to another. 2 does in fact equal 1 due to entanglement.

>>16722721 (OP)
Concerning

>>16723729
are you going to explain your schizophrenia at some point, or are you simply going to keep spouting that shit without any explanation?

>>16725511
you mean you really don't know? lol you dumb fuck, get off my board

>>16722721 (OP)
division by zero is fine(see extended reals, either affine or projective), multiplication of zero with said number divided by zero is what's problematic

>>16725512
right after you eat my ass out, nigger

>>16725513
Division by zero is "undefined" because the output is context dependent.
You can divide by zero but only in certain series sums where the aggregate behavior of the series makes what the answer "should be" plainly obvious.

>>16725520
2=1=0 because there are infinite integers between each "number" and -∞=0=∞, also Pauli principle (another thread in catalog but was worthwhile to comment on) entirely depends on the idea that what we see occur with causality in things like event horizons/singularities means that 0 probability implies something is impossible. But that is incorrect beyond its acute perspective of a given matter. Nothing is actually as fixed as it seems. It is the matter of awareness of the properties within a given environment that is in turn, only based within our awareness. Such assumes too much in what can be measured or controlled, included or excluded as variables. For the average situation it is viable, but the wider you set the scale the higher the probability becomes to the extent even 0 is not indicative of impossibility. As a representation 0 is still a value until it is removed, yet the removal indicates a value. Therefore 0 can be greater than 0, as well as less than. And we can see this as 20>10. And you might say this is a placeholder. But if it has no value it should not affect the value of what it is attached to. But if it is dependent on what it is attached to for value, then its value is that integer. So yes 0=∞.

>>16722721 (OP)
redpill is that all numbers are equal

>>16722754
transfinite numbers admit that

>>16723399
based and absolute value pilled

>>16724014
how can you post math?

>>16722721 (OP)
retard, a-b equals 0
therefore
[math]\begin{align}
(a+b)(a-b) &= b(a-b) \\
(a+b) \times 0 &= b \times 0 \\
0 &= 0
\end{align}[/math]

>>16722721 (OP)
Oh great this thread again.
We used to talk about that a couple of times in HIGHSCHOOL

ITT: autists reply to an obvious troll.

>>16724703
I'm so bored it's unreal

>>16726579
Better to throw ideas out and discuss than just let a repost or shitpost be of consequence to the board. Might as well just use them as stepping stones for dialogue.

>>16726474

>>16722721 (OP)
a + b = 2b though

>>16722759
>divide 12 by 3
>take 12 things and form 3 groups of things from this collection of things
>divide 12 by zero
>take 12 things and form zero groups of things from this collection of things
this is as simple as I can explain it. if you still don't understand, you are literally retarded

>>16722821
see >>16727074

>>16727078
so 12/0 = 0. thank you.

>>16727085
confirmed as legitimately retarded.
you cannot place a finite number of things into zero groups. even a child would realize this makes no sense.
even if you try to say "oh well zero things fit into zero groups so it's zero" you still have twelve things in front of you, not zero things.

>>16727098
Yes you can. If I have deemed a group of items to be in group 0, they are so. If I have 12 things I deem to be of a value of 0, they are so. Why does that work? Because 0 can have value and not at the same time. 0=1;0=∞
>If it isnt so, why are we after zero point energy? It wouldnt have any value afterall.

>>16727098
>NOOO YOU CANT JUST TAKE THE SQUARE ROOT OF A NEGATIVE NUMBER THAT DOESNT MAKE ANY SENSE… BECAUSE IT DOESNT OKAY???

>>16727033
saviour

>>16727400
We aren't putting names on these groups anon. There isn't group A, B and C or 1, 2 3. That is a label youre putting on the other anons group of 12 items for easy reference. This reference tag, so to speak, is from an external source - you. But the 12 things on the table are inherently 12 things. Whatever value you assign to them is separate to their actual nature.

As for zero-point energy, does that relate to the fact that the average environment on Earth is hundreds of degrees above absolute 0, which indicates a large amount of energy just waiting to be harnessed?

>>16722857
Does the entire piece count as a piece, or are pieces limited to slices/fractions?
Could 0 be indivisible because it's actually the entire pie? or Pi?

>>16722748
you are the pseud ass when you cancel a-b on either side it divides dumbass

>>16727403
kek ethered that midwit

>>16727480
sticky has another help page undergradmath-1.png

>>16727515
No because I can assign a value of 0 to the 0 things concerning me, or I can assign a value of 12 as you describe. But the truth is that it is still ultimately, a value of zero just as much as it is any of the other values. Just because (You) want to assign abstract values arbitrarily, does not mean the value is anything other than what it truly is. And their actual value is indeed mutable just as much as you can assert 0 is mutable in the absolute. That's the entire premise I am getting at. The numbers, the objects, and the conditions are all mutable. And the potential you see as being able to be utilized as energy, was emergent from 0 as well. Whether you are atheist and think it was from a big bang, or religious and consider a creation in which a deity brought it forth, it still came from 0. And even if you think it was just a cycle or circle, the origin point or base stability at its center, is still a value of 0.

Embrace the null potential anon.

>arguing over division by 0
i thought this board was smart
r/math unironically clears by miles, let alone math twitter or stackexchange

bye

>>16722788
0/0 = 1
because N/N is always 1

>>16722795
>a and b can be any number
If they can be any number, then it should work with a = b = 1.

>>16722721 (OP)