John Cuthber

No, because you didn't explain it. you just posted some meaningless words. " It is a current mathematical fact, that when multiplying one SYMBOL is not technically a number but rather a representation of a space." Would you like to try again?

"If 2 * 3 means 2+2+2 then 3 is NOT a number. period." Yes it is. It's the number of twos added together. You might not think the process is important, but most maths tests I saw said to show your working. Anyway, It's perfectly reasonable for me to ask what the process is and,, on this forum, you should answer. Either that or I'm caught between whether you are trolling or it's the K D effect.

The question is "how does the lawyer divide up the money between zero people?". Once again, it's not that the answer to the question "What is 1/0?" is unknown. The problem is that the question is meaningless. There is no process by which it can be worked out. In the same way there is no process by which the lawyer can share out the money. the issue isn't "how much does each person get?" It isn't "Where does the money go?". the question is what is the process of division that the lawyer undertakes? And,as I have pointed out many times. You have not addressed that. What you have said is that he does nothing. Well, that doesn't divide up the money-so it is plainly the wrong answer. Try again. Come up with a means by which he can share the cash between zero people. Or, at least stop saying that you have done it.

The "Many" and "One" don't refer to the values, but how many answers there are. That polynomial is a many to one function because three different numbers (1,2 and 3) all give the same answer. The point is that Many inputs give One output. Also you have not addressed the objections raised. My objection was that you couldn't tell the lawyer what to do. You can't. So you have not defined a process for division by zero.

from the pov of most of the Western world, the American "Left wing" is actually a long way to the Right. Yes,. that's what I meant.

It reminds me of the story of Jack the village idiot, who had two horses but didn't know how to tell them apart. Someone suggested he measured their heights. Jack was delighted when he found that the black one was two inches taller than the white one.

Imagine I have a big magnet on the table and I hang a needle above it. Th field of the big magnet will induce a field in the needle and so the needle will end up aligned with the magnet. It still works if the big magnet is the Earth.

The US doesn't have a Left.

Multiplication by zero is a many to one function, and the inverse would be a one to many function- which isn't really much of a function. Let's start with a better behaved one. If I multiply out (X-1) (X-2) X-3) I will get a cubic equation in x and there are clearly 3 solutions to that polynomial being equal to zero. So, if I tell you that the value of the polynomial is zero, you don't know what the value of X is. The polynomial itself is a perfectly well behaved cubic that looks like this picture For any value of x you can find the value of y because there is only 1 value of y for any given x. But, as I said, the inverse function which is what you get by transposing the x and y axes isn't well behaved. it looks like the second picture (sorry for the upside down butchered image). Near x=0 it's a one to many (three to be specific) function and, because of that you can't define the value . If x is zero is y 1, 2 or 3? You can't say. Well with division by zero, it's even worse. If you multiply any number by zero you get zero (of course) and so there's no way of "undoing" the function. But the inverse of multiplication by zero is division by zero; and it's impossible. So mathematicians simply accepted that you can't undo multiplication by zero; the process for "undoing" it can't be defined. on several occasions you seem to have beleived that 1/0 =x where x is some undefined number. That's missing the point. It's not that x is undefined. it's that the process of division by zero is undefined. it's not that there isn't an answer, but that the question makes no sense. I got bored + checked that I can still do a bit of easy algebra. The polynomial is a cubic x3 -6x2+11x -6 =0 The trouble with your idea is that this cubic, and division by zero and a whole lot of other functions have no inverse. So, just as you have made up an arbitrary rule to cover inverting one function (division by zero) you would still need to make up an infinite set of arbitrary rules for "inverting" all the others. That's going to take you an infinitely long time. And it still won't share a pie.

That whole post makes about as much sense as saying that walnuts don't contain melons. It's not a matter of a different spelling; melatonin has little to do with melanin. The answer to the questions is "it depends". Whether or not the brown pigments produced by fruit turning brown are properly called "melanin" is a matter of opinion/ definition. the brown pigments in plants have little or no nitrogen in them; so they are different from the ones produced in animals- for example as a sun tan. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/njos/2014/498276/ Why do you ask?

Writing lots of equations doesn't help, especially if they are wrong. Answering the problems would. You have yet to address my first point; how do you propose to invert a many to one function?

It's wrong because, like you, it doesn't answer the questions.

Using rose petals as a pH indicator is a more realistic test.

Sodium hydroxide picks up water from the air very quickly, then it picks up CO2 to become the carbonate, then the carbonate dries. If it is dry then it's carbonate.

It's a good example of how to program a computer to do the wrong thing. Why would you do that? In the mean time, can you tell me the answer to the lawyer's problem, or do you accept that no answer has been defined?

At least part of the colour is this stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juglone

You can do nothing, pretend to have divided it by zero and hope that nobody sees that the emperor has no clothes on.

OK if you don't think that division by zero is impossible, why don't you tell us how to divide a pie among zero people. Here's a hint, if you can't it's because the operation isn't defined.

Yes, when you do nothing, nothing happens. Nobody has ever asked about that. What we have asked is what happens when you man up and actually do something? In particular, what happens when you divide the pie by zero? Doing nothing and then claiming to have divided it by zero isn't going to work. You are behaving like a school kid saying "I have done my homework: I did nothing because I redefined doing my homework as doing nothing." It wouldn't work at school and it doesn't work here.

According to this http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/16/donald-trump-announces-run-president he was being absurd. I gather that this is the whole of his speech (though it starts with a lot of gush from his daughter who seems not to have noticed that he's had to file for bankruptcy rather e lot). You can see for yourself who he means.

That assertion is absurd; you don't get to "decide" how it is. As I said before- the measurements have already been taken. The flight times for international travel are measurements of distances and they only make sense if the Earth is round. So, whatever measurements you may make tomorrow, they can not contradict the fact that the earth is actually round. If you make a measurement to "confirm" that it's flat then that experiment will simply fail.

So, you might have come up with something you can call "dividing by zero" but it doesn't apply to numbers. What reality does it describe? It doesn't actually answer the reality of dividing a pie. What might it help with? What does it describe? In particular, what does it describe better than ordinary numbers do?

This might help http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/world-affairs/2012/05/exploding-myth-feckless-lazy-greeks

Nope, he just says the beam isn't straight

The first thing I would say is that the website is out to make money by selling a video.