0÷0

[DrKrettin]

3 hours ago, scherado said:

 Do you understand the several assertions I have made?

You scatter assertions around and it's difficult to keep up, but I doubt whether you actually understand most of them.

[Strange]

4 hours ago, scherado said:

Do you understand the several assertions I have made?

I'm sure people understand them. That is probably why they disagree with them.

[studiot]

Of course, mathematics has meet the difficulty presented by the OP (and it is a difficulty) before, which is (one of the many reasons) why the theoretical structure of mathematics was revised and extended towards the end of the 19th century.

The sad thing is that the OP choses to stamp and act in a juvenile manner rather than listen when someone takes the time and trouble to explain.

Edited September 28, 2017 by studiot

[Strange]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

The sad thing is that the OP choses to stamp and act in a juvenile manner rather than listen when someone takes the time and trouble to explain.

Actually, the OP politely thanked people for their inputs. It is scherzando (damned autocorrect) who is being juvenile. As in all the threads he joins.

[studiot]

53 minutes ago, Strange said:

Actually, the OP politely thanked people for their inputs. It is scherzando (damned autocorrect) who is being juvenile. As in all the threads he joins.

Strange  - you are so right. +1

Easy -  My Humble apologies for doubting you.

scherado  - take note.

Edited September 28, 2017 by studiot

[uncool]

12 hours ago, scherado said:

 

Not quite simply. Do you dispute my reason? You can't dispute my reason. You haven't disputed my reason. Your reason, I do not dispute. My reason gets to the exact heart of the matter. Your reason does not. Do you understand the several assertions I have made?

As I implied in my post: no, I do not understand the assertions you've made, because I don't understand your concept of "value". There are several well-defined notions of "number", and these notions demonstrate definitively why division by 0 can't be permitted. What do you mean by "value", and why should we care?

[Strange]

I suppose if "value" means "not zero" then it is trivially true. But pointless (of no value, one might say).

[scherado]

10 hours ago, uncool said:

As I implied in my post: no, I do not understand the assertions you've made, because I don't understand your concept of "value". There are several well-defined notions of "number", and these notions demonstrate definitively why division by 0 can't be permitted. What do you mean by "value", and why should we care?

If someone doesn't have a proper conception of infinity, then that person might get into trouble somewhere, sometime, someplace. That is my answer to "why should we care."

If I asked you the value of X in an equation containing X, then would you know what I meant by "value?"

 

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, scherado said:

If I asked you the value of X in an equation containing X, then would you know what I meant by "value?"

But apparently X can't be zero?

(rhetorical question as I am on ignore)

Edited September 29, 2017 by Strange

[DrKrettin]

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

But apparently X can't be zero?

(rhetorical question as I am on ignore)

I'll try, but I'm probably in ignore as well.

[studiot]

I think I now know what scherado means by value.

The statement X has the value 7.3, or X = 7.3 as an equation, is specific.

There is only one number that X can be.

 

But that is true of only a handful of equations at most.

There are many more equations for which the statement is not true.

 

So the 'value of X' is a more general statement than a specific number.
It  requires a referential statement or condition to define the circumstances when specifity is needed.

 

The statement X has no value does not mean that X = 0.

It means that there is no number that satifies the particular condition in question.

For instance [math]\sqrt { + 5} [/math] has no integer values and [math]\sqrt { - 5} [/math] has no real values.

Of course this does not prevent zero having a value, just as 7.3 does.

It just provides rational meaning for the terms.

 

 

Edited September 29, 2017 by studiot

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

The statement X has no value does not mean that X = 0.

But he said before that 0 is not a value. He then talked about "the value of X" which implies (to me) that X cannot be zero. 

[studiot]

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

But he said before that 0 is not a value. He then talked about "the value of X" which implies (to me) that X cannot be zero. 

Of course, since many equations have more than one solution, scherado could be using a less general interpretation of value to mean

"The particular solution we select from the solution set of a given equation"

The problem with this is that zero is the only solution to some equations.
This means that scherado has to exclude some equations from his definition, as having no solution or no value in his terms.

You are correct he also has to exclude zero from all solution sets, which may or may not then then not be empty.

But of course he then ends up in a worse position, equation solving wise, than if he had simply done what mathematicians realised over a thousand years ago and was going to be in my post that he rejected out of hand.

 

 

[Strange]

Unfortunately, he is notoriously reluctant to explain what he means; claiming it should be obvious, or resorting to cryptic analogies or quotations. (And, next step: insults and/or putting people who ask for more detail on ignore.)

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

Unfortunately, he is notoriously reluctant to explain what he means; claiming it should be obvious, or resorting to cryptic analogies or quotations. (And, next step: insults and/or putting people who ask for more detail on ignore.)

I see that scherado has a degree in confusion computer science.

I dread to think how computers could operate without the number zero, since most have only two numbers to work with and one of those is zero..

I hesitate to use the t- word, but If we are genuinely being ignored I think the best we can do is to ensure that balancing correct statememnts are present in this thread.

 

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Let's stick to discussing the subject matter of the thread. 

 

[uncool]

13 hours ago, scherado said:

If someone doesn't have a proper conception of infinity, then that person might get into trouble somewhere, sometime, someplace. That is my answer to "why should we care."

It sounds like you are trying to tailor a definition of "value" specifically in order to deal with division by 0. In other words, I don't see anything extra that your definition of "value" actually gives us. Why should we use it when we have a standard answer (as I gave above)?

If I asked you the value of X in an equation containing X, then would you know what I meant by "value?

 

Not in a way consistent with what you have said. "x + 5 = 5" is an equation, and I would usually answer the corresponding question with "The value of x is 0". But you say that 0 is not a value. 

 

Apologies for weird quotes; this new software is not my usual.

Edited September 29, 2017 by uncool
Quotes acting very weirdly

[TakenItSeriously]

Logically, zero does not have a "value" in the same sense that whole numbers have distinct "values".

 

For example, Johnny may have 1 penny, or 9 pennies, or any whole number of pennies, but having zero pennies simply means that he does not have any pennies.

 

Another words having zero pennies is the logical negative of having some whole number of pennies therefore the usage of the word "value" is being applied in two different contexts.

 

It's the same concept of how prime numbers are defined in the negative form as what they are not, which is the source of so much confusion as far as primes being deterministic or not.

 

i.e. primes should be defined as numbers that are not composite numbers because composite numbers are all 100% deterministic based on their prime factors. Prime numbers are therefore only deterministic as far as being the range of all numbers left over after determining all composite numbers within a range.

Edited September 30, 2017 by TakenItSeriously

[scherado]

8 hours ago, uncool said:

It sounds like you are trying to tailor a definition of "value" specifically in order to deal with division by 0. In other words, I don't see anything extra that your definition of "value" actually gives us. Why should we use it when we have a standard answer (as I gave above)?

...

Not in a way consistent with what you have said. "x + 5 = 5" is an equation, and I would usually answer the corresponding question with "The value of x is 0". But you say that 0 is not a value. 

...

I all my math classes the same sentence was used. In the classes where we treated infinity as a value, as well as zero as a value we did so throughout and at every moment bound by the restriction that division by zero was "undefined", and hence, not permitted. I am not "trying to tailor a definition of 'value' specifically in order to deal with division by 0": I'm not attempting to solve a problem. You have misconstrued my posts if you think I'm attempting "to deal with division by 0". I take no issue with, don't dispute that restriction, that impossibility. What I know, or have observed, is that their is widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of numerical infinity. I, also, find widespread misunderstanding of "random", but that will be another thread.

 

19 hours ago, studiot said:

I see that scherado has a degree in confusion computer science.

I dread to think how computers could operate without the number zero, since most have only two numbers to work with and one of those is zero..

I hesitate to use the t- word, but If we are genuinely being ignored I think the best we can do is to ensure that balancing correct statememnts are present in this thread.

 

I do not have a degree in computer science. Did I not make that clear? I can't remember. You have been added to my ignore list, congratulations.

Edited September 30, 2017 by scherado

[DrKrettin]

3 hours ago, scherado said:

I do not have a degree in computer science. Did I not make that clear? I can't remember. You have been added to my ignore list, congratulations.

It is ridiculous that you think that adding somebody to your ignore list is somehow a punishment, and it is also ridiculous that you think anybody cares about your stupid list. Why don't you grow up and stop throwing your toys out of the pram when somebody disagrees with you? And who the hell cares exactly what your degree title is? There is no evidence that you learned anything from it anyway.

[studiot]

3 hours ago, scherado said:

I do not have a degree in computer science. Did I not make that clear? I can't remember. You have been added to my ignore list, congratulations.

No you did not make that clear, quite the reverse.

My apologies if you do not, in fact, have a computer science degree, perhaps you call them something different in your part of the world.

[scherado]

17 hours ago, TakenItSeriously said:

Logically, zero does not have a "value" in the same sense that whole numbers have distinct "values".

...

 

20 hours ago, uncool said:

It sounds like you are trying to tailor a definition of "value" specifically in order to deal with division by 0. In other words, I don't see anything extra that your definition of "value" actually gives us. Why should we use it when we have a standard answer (as I gave above)?

...

 

12 hours ago, scherado said:

I all my math classes the same sentence was used. In the classes where we mis-treated infinity as a value in our verbiage, as well as zero as a value we did so throughout and at every moment bound by the restriction that division by zero was "undefined", and hence, not permitted. I am not "trying to tailor a definition of 'value' specifically in order to deal with division by 0": I'm not attempting to solve a problem. You have misconstrued my posts if you think I'm attempting "to deal with division by 0". I take no issue with, don't dispute that restriction, that impossibility. What I know, or have observed, is that their is widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of numerical infinity. I, also, find widespread misunderstanding of "random", but that will be another thread.

I added a 'mis-" and "in our verbiage" to the part concerning the treatment of numerical infinity, clarification. Let my try this:

X = a/b; Let a=10, b=2

What is the value of X? The value is 5.

Let b=0

A text book or professor may ask, What is the value of X? Nobody objects and everybody knows X is not a value.

Could I have avoided all this if I used the word "number" instead of "value"?

What's the reason we can't divide by zero? Infinity is not a number.

[TakenItSeriously]

8 hours ago, studiot said:

No you did not make that clear, quite the reverse.

My apologies if you do not, in fact, have a computer science degree, perhaps you call them something different in your part of the world.

While I'm unfamiliar with Computer Mathematics, I don't think it should be confused with Computer Science which is based on logic, not math.

While all math is founded on logical premise, generally speaking, Logic and Math are not the same thing. In fact, in general, I'd desscribe them as being pretty much opposite disciplines, though in a complimentary way.

 

[scherado]

11 minutes ago, TakenItSeriously said:

While I'm unfamiliar with Computer Mathematics, I don't think it should be confused with Computer Science which is based on logic, not math.

While all math is founded on logical premise, generally speaking, Logic and Math are not the same thing. In fact, in general, I'd desscribe them as being pretty much opposite disciplines, though in a complimentary way.

 

What I revealed in another thread, somewhere, is that the major "Computer Mathematics" was a hybrid due to the fact that the college didn't have a proper CompSci major until, actually, the year after I matriculated. I did NOT decide to change my major as I enjoyed the math classes, except the two semesters of Prob & Stats, which I suffered through miserably for personal reasons.

There are no mathematics specific to software languages, which has to be explained as I go along in life when I reveal my B.A. degree.

[Strange]

31 minutes ago, scherado said:

 

 

I added a 'mis-" and "in our verbiage" to the part concerning the treatment of numerical infinity, clarification. Let my try this:

X = a/b; Let a=10, b=2

What is the value of X? The value is 5.

Let b=0

A text book or professor may ask, What is the value of X? Nobody objects and everybody knows X is not a value.

Could I have avoided all this if I used the word "number" instead of "value"?

What's the reason we can't divide by zero? Infinity is not a number.

But you said: "ZERO is not a value"! Not infinity, ZERO!!!

No one disagrees that infinity is not a number or value.  (It isn't relevant, but that is beside the point.)

The point of contention is that zero IS a number and a value. So why did you say it wasn't???

To take your example:

X = a/b; Let a=10, b=2

What is the value of X? The value is 5.

Let a=0

Now what is the value of x? It is zero of course. So why did you say that wasn't a value?

[Of course, I will never know because (a) I am on ignore and (b) Scherzando refuses to clarify what he means - he thinks it is easier to just put anyone who asks for clarification on ignore.)

33 minutes ago, TakenItSeriously said:

While I'm unfamiliar with Computer Mathematics, I don't think it should be confused with Computer Science which is based on logic, not math.

There is a quite a lot of mathematics in computer science.