Understanding / by Zero

[Greg H.]

Greg H.

 

It is not that 0 has no value. It is that it is value that is undefined.

 

As a fact no value does not exist.

 

Value is everywhere.

 

Also my statement was equivalent to multiplying by one. I agree. I have proposed an axiom to follow all current field axioms. Post #23

 

Additionally 0 in binary is not the same as 0 in mathematics.

I love how you completely skipped over pretty much every point I made, and made yourself look silly in the process.

 

Just do this for me. All I ask is for you to divide a pie into 0 equal pieces.

 

Take your time. I'll wait.

[conway]

Greg

 

considering that a piece is not a whole. Then a pie comes already divided into zero equal pieces. Look GreagH philosophy is not mathematics. You seem to be stuck in the philosophy of the matter. I can divide 5 apples by nothing and I still have five apples. It is a fact in reality, nothing disappears certainly not a pie. So I ask you

 

Divide a pie by zero equal pieces, and have it disappear, or have it change it's self into something undefined.

 

 

You'll look pretty silly in the process.

 

 

Bignose

 

Explain to me again how this has anything to do with what I am suggesting. Why can a number not have more than one component? Why does z1 and z2 require definition at all. Why do z2 and z1 have to both be dimensions, and why then does that make the axiom I gave not work. It seems self inherent that a single object can posses 2 components. The value of the object, and the space of the object.

 

 

In any case.....why does a number have to posses one and only one characteristic?

 

Any dimension has two directions. This is a fact (right?). So then a single dimension may posses more than one characteristic.

 

Thank you Bignose for your help

Edited June 30, 2015 by conway

[studiot]

Considering your division of apples, Here is a pretty trick:

 

Consider $ instead of apples and divide $1 by 0.0000000001

How many dollars do I now have?

 

Perhaps if you knocked on the door of the Greek treasury you could solve their crisis with this wonderful new maths.

 

[Unity+]

Perhaps if you knocked on the door of the Greek treasury you could solve their crisis with this wonderful new maths.

 

You know that a thread is over when we can only make jokes to represent how ridiculous an idea is.

[ajb]

Why can a number not have more than one component?

Then it would not be a number as we usually understand such things.

 

 

 

The value of the object, and the space of the object.

The value of a real number is okay, it is probably just the real number itself or maybe the modulus. But you still have to define this carefully. As for the space associated with a number I have no idea.

 

Any dimension has two directions.

I do not know what you mean by this.

 

I suspect you are using very non-standard language here.

[John Cuthber]

I love how you completely skipped over pretty much every point I made, and made yourself look silly in the process.

 

Just do this for me. All I ask is for you to divide a pie into 0 equal pieces.

 

Take your time. I'll wait.

Conway,

When you have finished that could you help out my friend who is a lawyer (He's also not actually real- but that's not the point).

A man died. my friend has to sort out the will.

The man's will left the estate to be divided between his daughters.

At the time he wrote it, there were 3 of them so the estate would be split in three.

It was worth £120,000 so that's £120,000/3 =£40,000 each

Unfortunately, long before he died one of the daughters died- Sad, but not a problem for my friend who simply split the money in two. Each surviving daughter stood to get £120,000/2 =£60,000.

 

It seems the family was plagued by poor luck since another daughter dies the following year.

Not a big deal for the lawyer- there's no arithmetic to do. The remaining daughter stood to inherit all £120,000. That's £120,000/1 in case you hadn't spotted the trend.

 

But the last daughter died just before the man. He hadn't time to rewrite his will.

The estate now has to be divided equally among zero surviving daughters.

 

What happens to the money?

Each of zero people receives £120,000/0

Who gets what?

How does my imaginary lawyer friend do that?

[Phi for All]

Any dimension has two directions. This is a fact (right?).

 

No. A line is a 1D spatial component. If you move perpendicularly from every point in that line, you have a 2D shape, a rectangle. If you move perpendicularly from every point in that rectangle, you get the third spatial dimension, height, and you make a cube.

[Greg H.]

Greg

 

considering that a piece is not a whole. Then a pie comes already divided into zero equal pieces. Look GreagH philosophy is not mathematics. You seem to be stuck in the philosophy of the matter. I can divide 5 apples by nothing and I still have five apples. It is a fact in reality, nothing disappears certainly not a pie. So I ask you

 

No, the pie is one equal piece.

 

That aside, you've proven time and again, you're not actually listening to the arguments against your topic, you're simply waving your hands and saying look over here! This is supposed to be a discussion, not a demonstration of verbal sleight of hand.

 

Have a good day. I am now withdrawing from this thread.

 

(Side note: That doesn't mean you're right. Just that I've recognized the futility of trying to continue this discussion with you).

 

This thread is now about the Greek Financial crisis, and how we can solve it with apple pie.

[pzkpfw]

In the news today: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/apps/69857818/divide-zero-by-zero-dont-ask-siri

[Greg H.]

LOL

[conway]

Pzkpfw

 

0cookies/0friends = 0/0

I have at no time claimed that 0/0 does not equal 0. Your link was unfair.

 

 

Greg

 

"No the pie is one equal piece"

 

So what do I have in my hands after I do "nothing".....or divide it by zero. The question always is "what is left in your hands". I have one equal piece...which by the way is known as a whole. A piece is whole unto its self, but a whole must be divided for anything to be a piece. Such as every field is a ring, but not every ring is a field.

 

 

Unity+

 

This thread may indeed be dead. I hope not. Hopefully I can continue to find a way to help resolve this in my mind. Thank you for you time.

 

 

Studiot

 

10,000,000,000

I am not sure what your point here is.

 

 

John

 

"what happens to the money"

 

120000/0=?

 

well the "money" doesn't become "undefined" does it John. The "money" doesn't disappear does it. Sure no one receives the money. But that does not mean the money doesn't exist. So then.....

 

If your lawyer friend is holding 120k, and he has no one to give it to. How much money is in his hand? 120K

 

120000/0=120000(that no one gets)...........not "undefined", and not "infinity.

 

 

Phia

 

Ok I finally understand what you are saying here. Perhaps this is what Bignose is getting at. So that if I "move" at all the number line becomes 2d. But up to that point it is still 1d. Is this correct. Therefore a person can not have 2d with in 1d. Correct? Yet again.....if I do not move at all on my "number line" and it is composed of 1d and it is ALSO composed of "points", "numbers", "value" . Then clearly I have 1d with more than one characteristic.

 

 

Ajb

 

Thank you

 

What's wrong with a number being "as we usually understand things". I think you have mentioned this to me before...could you suggest again. It seems to me that a number line is both "space, and value". Its difficult to argue the differences, but clearly you agree that a number has value. Others talk of how a number line has space. So come on guys numbers "sit" on lines. Lines are composed of numbers. Numbers have value, lines have space. It seems to me the reality is that a number has both components of space and value inherent with in it. Why is this really any different than saying that only lines are space, and only numbers are value. We put one with in the other all the time anyways. I meant that X on an axis has 2 directions. As x is known as a dimension. Same as all the other dimensions.

Edited July 1, 2015 by conway

[John Cuthber]

"well the "money" doesn't become "undefined" does it John"

Nobody said it id; that's a straw man.

What remains undefined is what you do with the money.

 

"The "money" doesn't disappear does it."

Make up your mind.

You said that it was the same as multiplication by zero, and that does make the money go away.

 

"If your lawyer friend is holding 120k, and he has no one to give it to. How much money is in his hand? 120K"

But, he can't keep it and as you say, the persons(s) to whom he has to give it is undefined.

That's as close as you seem to get to understanding why you can't divide by zero.

 

"120000/0=120000(that no one gets)...........not "undefined""

Nobody said the money was undefined, what we say is that what happens to the money is undefined- so the process of division by zero is undefined.

You can't have "money that nobody gets"; it makes no sense.

 

" and not "infinity."

Nobody said it was; what we said was that you can give none of it away to an infinite number of people.

 

So, what you have is a tacit acceptance that the process is undefined, and a lot of straw men.

[ajb]

What's wrong with a number being "as we usually understand things".

Nothing, but if you are not actually discussing the real numbers as a field then you should say so.

 

It seems to me that a number line is both "space, and value".

The number line is a space, it is a vector space and can be made into a topological space and even a smooth manifold.

 

By value, you mean an assignment of a number to each point on the number line. You could do this in many ways, the obvious one is just to assign the number x to the point x.

 

 

Others talk of how a number line has space.

... is a space. (see above)

[studiot]

pzkpfw +1, good link.

 

 

 

10,000,000,000

I am not sure what your point here is.

 

 

Since that was such a wildly wrong answer to a simple maths question, I don't see how you hope to tackle the more difficult one you wish to discuss.

 

 

I have seen University Professors of Mathematics on at least three continents say to you "There may be something in your idea, but it needs putting in proper terminology" and taking great pains and length to try to help you do this whilst you consistently sidestep their patient attempts to help and constantly return to your untenable statements until the good professors have no hair left to pull out.

[conway]

John.

 

No one said anything about the lawyer keeping the money. What was "done' with the money is NOT undefined. He kept or he through it away. It is not undefined. He still holds in his hands 120K.

 

 

Ajb

 

Actually according to the link in #17 all everything I have talked of since is of fields and rings. You gave me much education in this regards. I proud to say the axioms for fields and rings are the same found in the link. I have based everything I have said since on field and ring axioms.

 

 

Studiot

 

I have never been good at application of math. So tell me what I did wrong. Additionally, the rain man could solve severely more complicated equations then the one given by you, yet he couldn't tie his shoes. I have yet to see any claim this idea has any merit. So thanks I will take that as a compliment! So in order to save the professors hair, put one of my staments in the proper context for me please.

Edited July 1, 2015 by conway

[Phi for All]

John.

 

No one said anything about the lawyer keeping the money. What was "done' with the money is NOT undefined. He kept or he through it away. It is not undefined. He still holds in his hands 120K.

 

John carefully set up the conditions (a lawyer bound by a system) to show you that keeping the money or throwing it away are not part of the definition of the problem. The lawyer isn't allowed to do either, so what's happening with the money in this situation (the division by 0) is undefined.

[John Cuthber]

John.

 

No one said anything about the lawyer keeping the money. What was "done' with the money is NOT undefined. He kept or he through it away. It is not undefined. He still holds in his hands 120K.

Yes you did; here.

 

If your lawyer friend is holding 120k, and he has no one to give it to.

If he has it and there's nobody to give it to then he keeps it. The point is that you can't tell me what he does with it because the fate of the money is not defined.

That is because, whether you like it or not, division by zero is not defined.

Edited July 1, 2015 by John Cuthber

[conway]

Phi.

 

Nothing was said in the "parameters" of whether the lawyer keeps the money or not. Though John and I are talking about that. It is only said that the lawyer has no one to give it to. In any case phi, a/0 says nothing of what is done" with anything. But what is ALWAYS the case is the question "what is left in the hand"...no matter the operation. Clearly if the money is in his hand, and he has no one to give it to, then in his hand still is the money......latter "something" is done.

 

 

John.

 

 

Just because he has no one to "give it to" does not necessarily mean he keeps the money. It only means at the time for him to give the money away no one was there to give it to. At that time he held in his hand 120k. Later he does or does not "do" something with the money. Again if its money and addition...say, I have (hold) five dollars. I add 2 dollars. "How many dollars do I have (hold)." Undebatable 7. And the question always is john.....how many do I have (hold). The question never is "what do I do with it, or what happens to it". John maybe if you and I would talk only in mathematics we could be more successful in exchanging information. If I claimed then the following, would you show me a contradiction "mathematically".

 

0/0=0

a/0=a

0/a=0

 

0*0=0

0(z1)*A(z2)=0

A(z2)*0(z1)=0

0(z2)*A(z1)=A

A(z1)*0(z2)=A

 

Studiot

 

Are you saying that the way in which you "worded" your equation demands .0000000001/1, as opposed to 1/.0000000001 ? I still haven't figured out what your saying I have done wrong here.

[Endy0816]

If a/0=a, then a*0 = a.

If 0/a=0, then 0*a = 0.

 

Here's an example in code of what you are attempting.

function myFunction() {
    var i;
    var x = 1;
    var y = 0;

for(i = 1; x > 0; i++){

x = x-y;
}
}

The variable 'i' increases each time subtraction is performed.

 

If x=60 and y=5, then 'i' will end up being 12.

If x=6 and y=2, then 'i' will end up being 3.

 

but with x=1 and y=0, then 'i' keeps increasing and the function ends up being an infinite loop.

 

https://jsfiddle.net/Endy0816/84y1kv86/6/embedded/result/

Edited July 2, 2015 by Endy0816

[conway]

endy0816

 

 

 

It is also that A*0=0

It is also that 0*A=A

 

That is multiplication by zero is relative. Input a function for z1 and z2 where

 

z1 for 0 = 0

z2 for 0 = 1

 

z1 for A = A

z2 for A = A

 

As well as a "function" for choice of which is z1 and which is z2 in any multiplication operation. Allowing in division z1 is always first z2 is always second.

 

 

Also the following axiom may help

 

 

For every A in S there exist a z1 and a z2, constituting A, such that any A in operation of multiplication is only representing z1 or z2 in any equation.

Edited July 2, 2015 by conway

[Bignose]

It is also that 0*A=A

 

That is multiplication by zero is relative.

Please tell me how I can use this to fill my garage with Lamborghinis. I have 0 Lamborghinis now. I want to fill 1 garage.

 

0 Lamborghinis * 1 garage = 1 garage full of Lamborghinis according to the above.

 

Yet, no Lamborghinis... help please.

[Endy0816]

If you go the create-a-system route, you have quite likely created only an inconsistent system. We're also veering into speculation territory and a new thread on the subject should be opened if your intention is to discuss said system.

 

Honestly you need to look at more aspects than basic division. Negative exponents, vertical line slopes and tan(90) being main ones I remember. You are going to need to try and break your system. Find the logic hole(s).

 

 

Personally I suspect zero itself as the root issue in a more general sense(you are by far not the first to try and figure out the insanity of division by zero). What zero is based on is the perception of absence. Misapplied this seems to cause problems great and small.

 

Anyways I've demonstrated the RL issue caused by attempting division as normally defined via iterative subtraction. Not sure what else in addition to this I can really offer as far as understanding the problems caused with division by zero.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Endy0816

[conway]

Bignose

 

By making the statement 1 garage, clearly then you are using z1 for 0 in multiplication. That is

 

0(z1=0=value of car) * A (z2 = A = space of garage).= 0

A(repeat of above) * 0(repeat of above) = 0

 

Note however the opposite of this....

 

1 Lamborghini * 0 Garages, interesting enough you will still have 1 Lamborghini wouldn't you. Not zero. That is

 

0(z2=1=(space, that is not a garage) * A(z1=A=Lamborghini) = A

A(repeat of above) * 0(repeat of above) = A

 

 

 

 

Endy0816

 

Thank You,

 

You have given me much information to look into. I agree that zero is philosophically the key here. As you state "perception of absence". I suggest again that the real definition of zero then is a compilation of undefined value, and defined space. Not that value is absent. Just not the value in question, and or a definable value. Thank you for your time.

 

 

The absence of definable value, but not the absence of definable space.

Edited July 2, 2015 by conway

[Bignose]

Bignose

 

By making the statement 1 garage, clearly then you are using z1 for 0 in multiplication.

How is that clear except that it gives the right answer???

 

How the hell an I supposed to know what is the first component and what is the second one.

 

Can they change?

 

What is I wanted to put 1 garage on 0 plots of land? How many garages do I have then?

 

How about 0 garages on 1 plot of land? How many do I have now?

 

One of these two examples fits your pattern... so in one of these two examples I have garages on some land per your formula. Yet in the real world...nothing.

 

See how there is nothing 'clear' here?

[conway]

Bignose

 

I agree nothing is "intrinsically" clear. But I think if we exam the wording, it then becomes quite clear.

 

1 garage, as previously stated is a value, 0 then is space, land, water, or cosmos, in this sentence. So then

 

0 = z2=1

1 = z1 = 1

1 garage * 0land(still space) = 1 garage (just not a garage on land.)

 

1 land, is then the value, 0 then is the space, just not the space of a garage. So then

 

0= z1 = 0

1=z2=1

1 land * 0(garages)....again you still have space.= 1 land.

 

 

 

In the real world it is entirely possible for me to have 1 garage and 0 land

In the real world it is entirely possible for me to have 0 garages and 1 land.

Edited July 2, 2015 by conway