It being impossible IS an intelligent answer.
think harder nigga

>>690523947
Imagine you have 0 cookies and you must split them evenly among 0 friends.

Ok
4/2 is 2
So it's how many times 2 subtracts from 4
0/0 is infinity because you can do 0-0 an infinite number of times
So 0/1 is how many times 0 subtracts from 1 and that is infinity as well

imagine 1 as "something" or "stuff"

and 0 as "not something" or "not stuff"

you can't really make something out of nothing, so you can't divide numbers by 0

>>690524379
So essentially OP and his friends

Op just imagine you just finished another casr of mountain dew (original obv) and think

If I had some friends id sure want them to feel the pleasure of the dew as well
0/0

They're both zero..

>>690523947

0/0 = undefined.

>>690523947
Okay,

>1//1 = 1
>1/(-1) = -1

...by your logic:

>1/0 = (infinity)
>1/(-0) = (-infinity)

But 0 and -0 are the same thing. Zero is neither negative nor positive.

>>690524379
0÷0 isnt the problem. Any number that isn't zero being divided by zero is the problem.

>>690525434
Think of division as repeated subtraction - for x%0, it's the number of times you can remove 0 from x until it becomes negative, which is an infinite number of times.

>>690525434
Why wouldn't it just be 0? How many times does nothing go into something. How many not-apples are there in one apple? None, ever.

1÷0=∞
0÷0=∞
anything÷0=∞
But if you ask me, anything involving infinity is pretty much just a mathematicians circle jerk, it cannot be applied into the real word.

>>690524378
/thread

A division is defined by the multiplication which produces it as its inverse.

A division by zero has no such thing, so is undefined. It's an error, not an equation.

>>690523947
You can't divide by zero because the answer will be undefined. Think of Zero less as a number and more like a concept for nothing. If you instead treat it like a limit, where 0/x as x approaches 0, you will find that 0/0 is closer to zero than it is infinity, or 1. So if you want the closest answer, its zero.

>>690523947
The last digit of my post number.

>>690523947
Just so you know 0/0 is not equal to infinity. Also, 1/0 is not "completely impossible", they are both just undefined. In math things get defined when they have a reason to be. For example, the square root of negative 1 was defind as "i" because by doing so it made it so many problems could be solved. If there was a reason that you needed to make something divide by zero then you could say for example:

Let r = 1/0.

now, 0/0 = 0*3 and 5/0 = 5*r

But there is no purpose for this so it is not defined.

>>690525863
>think of division as something that it's not

Sure thing buddy.

>>690525377
Infinity =|= Undef.

>>690526755
I meant to write "0/0 = 0*r" not "0*3", my finger hit the wrong key.

>>690526635
Posted this. Here is the mathematical notation.
http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=limit+0%2Fx+as+x+approaches+0&x=0&y=0

Let x = 0/0
Suppose x is 1. Then 1 = 0/0
So 1*0 = 0
True. Great.

Suppose x = 2

Then 2 = 0/0
2*0 = 0
True.

Contradiction!

You being a retard still isn't proven false, thankfully

>>690525863
12/2=6

8/2=6

Yep, that's how division works

>>690526660
Dat 666

>>690523947
Let's say you've got 10 cookies, and you want to divide them equally among 0 of your friends. (10/0) shit doesn't work boss

>>690527127
you ok buddy?

>>690527082
this tho

0/0=1

cuz all number divided by himself is equal to 1, right?

>>690527366
Not true. It is if you divide a quantity by itself, not a number by itself and 0 is not a quantity, 0 is the lack of a quanitity.

>>690526755
0/0=X which can be rewritten as
0=0*X
So is that case, it makes sense for zero divided by zero to be infinite.

>>690527550
but how many 0 can a 0 hold? exactly 1 "0"

>>690527592
No, it's not infinite, just undefined.

>>690527366
0 is not a number

0/0 is kind of stupid to start with, think of it like you have a container and an object, division is how many objects you can put into the container, 1/1=1 because the object is the same size as the container.
with 0/0 you dont have an object or a container, so why even think about it?

>>690527592
0/0 is not defined so when you write "0/0 = X" you can not preform mathematical operations on it like multiplication which is what you did to attempt to prove that its infinity.

>>690527817

>0 is not a number

Are you actually retarded?

>>690527592
no it fucking doesn't

>>690527697
Actually, you can not have a 0 because a 0 is nothing. And how many nothings can a nothing hold? Well a nothing can not hold anything so it is not defined.

>>690527817
You are wrong but close. 0 is a number but 0 is not a quantity, read my reply to the guys post.

>>690527592
0 * X = 0 for all X
Hence, 0/0 doesn't hold any meaning.

>>690527954
Its not. It's a placeholder.

0 u fucking dumb

>>690528246

You're a placeholder for someone who can actually think properly.

>>690528054
but if 0 is nothing then it's a thing because nothing is something that don't exist

>>690526917

Define infinity

>>690528558
Nothing is a concept, not a thing.

ITT: idiots who don't understand math botching basics for anyone who has actually studied math.

0 is not a number. 0/0 doesn't mean anything. 1/0 doesn't mean anything. Limits exist for a reason.

Math is a set of definitions and doesn't mean anything until it is given meaning. When it is tractable to real life examples, that's because it was designed that way. Even the dumbest mathematician would think this thread is full of fucking idiots.

>>690528154
Sure you can call 0 a number but it doesnt really have any properties of actual numbers, its vastly different than for example 1, so why have a same word for it, its like calling us animals instead of our names.

>>690526062
What about circles?

>>690528772
>implying 0 is not part of the set of real numbers

>>690528772
if 0 is not a number then how many mansions do you have?

>>690523947
I used to argue that dividing by zero was infinity too, this video showed me why it makes no sense to say that

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRRolKTlF6Q

>>690523947
0 divided by 0 is 0, 1 divided by 0 is 1 if there is nothing dividing it then then it does not divide

>>690528820

[citation needed]

>>690523947
Have you ever learned calculus? If you understand calculus well, you might begin to understand what division by zero means.

I'll try to quickly explain a solution for one divided by zero. Let's look at the function Y = 1/X. Think of the graph. As the X-value goes from one to zero, the y-value goes from one to infinity. So, 1/0 = infinity. It's not something that can be plugged into a calculator, it's more just an intuitive answer. It's more definitive to state it as a limit; as X approaches 0, Y approaches infinity.

you need to learn about limits and calc man. its really trivial and subvertable after that

>>690525295

oh look the appropriate answer

>>690528772
You're right exept that zero is a number.

>>690529233

Close, but not quite. Consider the limits as x approaches zero from the positive or negative side--you get different results. This is why we say it's undefined.

>>690528820
You need to learn more about what a "number" is. A number can be many things, you say "1" for example, but another example of a number is 4 + pi*i. It is a complex number but not all numbers are integers or real numbers.

Division is asking how many times the denominator will go into the numerator.

If I have 100/5 = 20, you can think of it as saying "5 can go into 100 twenty times."

However, if I have 100/0 and we think of it in the same way, we cannot have any possible answer so we consider it undefined.

0 can never go into 100 no matter what because zero is thought of as " nothing ". It is by this logic that dividing by zero cannot be infinity, even an infinite amount of nothing cannot form something, in our case the number 100.

>>690528995
>>690529366
You're right. I got carried away. I'm in the "zero is not a number" conceptual camp. I know it's defined as such in most useful cases. Probably shouldn't have thrown that in there.

>>690529233
1/0 is not equal to infinity. However, the LIMIT of 1/0 is equal to infinity or negative infinity depending on the direction you take the limit from.

Take an empty cup
Try to pour the contents of another empty cup into it
There's your answer

>>690529366
Zero is a filthy, false integer. An hero.

>>690529656
muh nigga.

******LESSON TIME*******

Think in terms of money.

100/5=20

If I have a 100 dollar bill and 5 friends, they can each have a 20 dollar bill from me.

1/0=N/A

If I have a dollar and no friends to give it to, the dollar remains, however the answer is no existent, since the question would be "if no people want to share a dollar, how much do each get?". A reasonable response would be "if there are no people, then there is no value to assign to each persons share.... Hence n/a and not zero"

One could argue 0 as an answer, depicting the absence of a numerical value. However, 0 implies an answer instead of the question being illogical.

TL/DR: 1/0 is an illogical question mathmatically, so there's no answer.

If you have nothing, then divide that nothing by nothing, what are you left with? Nothing.

>>690529666
putting an equal sign there was a great way to get 0 points on a perfectly "correct" problem in c1

>>690529626

Zero was indeed controversial back in the day, it's not farfetched to question it exactly...

>>690527127
>8-2-2-2-2 has 6 2's
yep that's how subtraction works

>>690523947
2

This thread is full of people with highschool level math and a few people who think they understand what they are talking about because they get a C- in first year college calc.

for all real numbers X,
X/0 = undefined

This includes 0.

>>690523947
Undefined you retard, if there are limits may be infinity.

File: euler.jpg (6 KB, 308x292) Image search: [Google]

6 KB, 308x292

>>690529656

>>690529626
That's cool, but it depends on context of course, and for our purposes (schooling retards on /b/) zero is indeed a number.

>>690523947
1/0 is not infinity. It is neither. As you approach 1/x from the left, it tends to negative infinity. As you approach from the right, positive infinity. So it is neither. This makes sense, basically it's like if I am taking something negative and making it smaller and smaller, no matter how many times I cut it up, it will never be positive. Same with positives. Cut a pie into as many pieces as you want, you'll never have negative amounts of pie. It basically just shows what it means to divide something, it expresses that you will not end up with negative thing by chopping up into infinitely many parts (and vice versa).

0/0 is 1.

>>690529895
Yeah, but I shouldn't have thrown it in there. It was distracting and pedantic.

>>690529985

I personally blame algebra teachers everywhere.

>>690530052
I'm assuming you didn't do very well in calculus.

>>690529366
Uuh, Are you sure?

I've had a number of wives in my life.

is something you're likely to say, even if you have had none?

>>690530052
>as you approach 1/x from the left
this literally means nothing

I'm with
>>690530235

>>690529786
>>690529502

We managed to use the exact same numeric example in our explanations, funny how that happens.

Empty set

>>690529816
This

>>690530191
Yeah you can definitely blame horrible teachers, but that doesn't change the fact that almost everyone posting here doesn't really know what they are talking about.

>>690530000
thank you

chekt

>>690523947
Since zero, symbolically, is a whole (also looks like a "hole"/"whole", if you're an Englisher), it is also representative of All, as in everything. Every thing. So it is all things as well, and all things seen as a collective...and therefore you could have 0 divided by 0 actually equal 1 because you have all things divided by all things, which is another way of saying 1 (total) divided by 1 (total).

1 divided by all things would be the fraction of that one thing compared to All Things.

>>690523947
Nigro.
>How many nothings are in something? none

>How many nothings are in nothing? Who knows

It's not fucking hard tbh

>>690524379
No cookies and no friends. Sounds about right.

I'll reply I guess since nobody has given a strong definition or explanation.....

This about what is actually going on with division you have the numerator (top) and denominator (bottom), think of a pizza and although it's kind of autistic imagine you wanted to cut the pizza into 4 pieces, you would have 1 pizza and divide it into 4 pieces which results in 1 divided by 4 (1/4) and each individual piece is now 0.25 of a pizza. If you wanted to divide 2 pizzas into 4 pieces you would have 2 divided by 4, (2/4) which results in 0.5 pizzas per slice.

Now, let's move from something immediately tangible (like a pizza, you can imagine actually cutting) and consider what happens when we start using massive or tiny numbers on each side.

Our immediate concern is dividing by zero and understanding what exactly happens.

If we have x divided by x we are taking x and dividing it into x pieces therefore the value of each piece is always 1, now imagine what happens when you have x in the numerator and x+y in the denominator (note that this does not reduce to 1/y) as y increases the answer decreases, as the denominator approaches infinity you will see that you have your number in the numerator being sliced into many many pieces the size of those pieces will become very very small as they approach zero (NOT negative infinity).

But to finally answer the question..... if you have 1/x as x approaches zero you'll start at 1/1 which is 1 and and moving on to divide by less than one 1/(0.25) is = 4 and if you think about what you're asking you are asking to take 1 and divide into into 1/4 pieces, you might think of it in the sense of a double negative as you are dividing by less than 1, you are dividing a fraction by a fraction. and as you APPROACH zero the answer APPROACHES infinity.
The process of dividing by zero is stating that you have a pizza and you want to cut it into zero pieces, which is impossible.

>>690530365
You're arguing fucking linguistic semantics. This is not the place for that. Get fucked in the ass by a double entendre.

>>690530397
I am the person who said he didn't do well in calc, but to be honest yes it does make seonse "from the left" if he is refering to a limit. He definitely doesn't understand what he is actually talking about though.

>>690523947
You sound almost as retarded as Terrence Howard.

"He had a theory. It might seem crazy, it may even be crazy, but a long time ago he'd gotten hold of this notion that one times one doesn't equal one, but two. He began writing down his logic, in a language of his own devising that he calls Terryology. "
""This is the last century that our children will ever have been taught that one times one is one," he says. "They won't have to grow up in ignorance. Twenty years from now, they'll know that one times one equals two. We're about to show a new truth. The true universal math. "

Fractions are like pizza. How many slices are cut up.... and how many slices can you eat. Well 1/0 means you van eat 1 slice of a pizza that does not exist... so you get 0 pizza. But 0/0 means you get 0 pieces of a pizza that does not exist... so they are essentially all 0. But in mathematical equations we relate to them as undefinable because of how ridiculous the set up to those problems are

>>690523947
You fucking retarded or something?

>>690530699
Congratz you explained a limit in dumb dumb language. You still forgot to mention that X/0 is undefined. Everyone already knows that the limit of 1/0 is either infinity or negative infinity depending on the direction of the limit.

>>690530746
I know what he was trying to say, but what he said was nonsense. I know what a limit is. He seems to think a limit is anything that uses the word "approach"

>>690523947
>X is a variable
0/X=0
X is all real numbers except 0
anything divided by 0 is undefined

Zero defines nothing. Nothing divided by nothing will still be nothing. Its like saying "I have no cookies in this jar, what if i took nothing away from it?" You would still have nothing.

>>690530769
>Terrence Howard
/thread

>>690531284
It is though.
As he approaches the subject of maths, he appears limited.

>>690526786
idiot

>>690531387
kek

>>690526635
>>690527073
This is the true answer.
0/0 = undefined, and it approaches 0, not infinity

>>690531331
>using subtraction to explain division
You are just as bad as OP.

>>690531326

Everything you say is right, but don't provide proof.

(not that the proof is hard)

>>690523947

Imagine you are floating out in space.

You look around at some of the empty space.

Then imagine taking some of that empty space,

and dividing it into empty space spaces.

Theoretically this ought to cause some sort of rip in the time-space fabric.

Therefore...

0 / 0 = - 0

0+0=0

>>690531465
>setting x to approach zero
>"It actually approaches zero"
Wew lad

>>690530397
Ok. You're right. We don't assign any sort of direction to graphical representations of numbers. Gtfo uneducated faggot.

File: SmugAnimeFace1.png (179 KB, 529x251) Image search: [Google]

179 KB, 529x251

>>690531623

>>690531623

Thankfully something that makes sense in this godforsaken thread.

>>690531646
That reading skills.

>>690523947

All right faggots. Let the expert handle this shit.

0 divided by 0 is indeterminate.

What, you say? What in the world is indeterminate? It means basically that it can take any arbitrary value.

That's right. 0/0 could = 6 or 41 or square root of pi.

How?

We can express 0/0 more formally as

limit k*n / n as n approaches 0.

Both kn and n go to zero. But surprisingly k could be any value.

For instance

lim{n goes to 0} 2n / n = 2

and lim{n goes to 0} 17n / n =17

In both cases, in the limiting case, both numerator and denominator go to zero.

If you want to be less formal, note that 0 / 0 = x implies (in a hand-wavy way) x * 0 = 0, again showing that x could take any value.

So there, you fucked your mind. You have arrived at a mathematical expression that could be any arbitrary value.

This is the beauty of what are called "singularities."

>>690531728
kek. You're just retarded, boy. It's you.

Actual mathematician here. You make me laugh.

>>690523947
The answer is a half. I don't remember why, something about taking the averages of the possible solutions, but it is what it is.

>>690531710
>uneducated
I'm calling people out on regurgitating the 10% of math they remember. These are the kind of retards who fall for things like "cancer is caused by alkaline blood" because they go, "Oh alkaline! I remembered that word from before I majored in sociology!"

>>690531801
Kek mate.
0/x=0/10=0/1=0/2371
There is no pattern established as x varies.

>>690530746
How do I not know what I'm talking about? Just because you say so? Lel. Can't even spell "sense."

>>690531284
Uh... That... Would be the general description of a limit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_(mathematics)
'In mathematics, a limit is the value that a function or sequence "approaches" as the input or index approaches some value'

top kekkle, gg fags

>>690531284
BTW aced calc

>>690523947
The numbers are the intersection of two operations that happen to play nice together. Addition is well defined for every single number and its 'identity element' (the number which does not change the sum when added) is 0. The corresponding identity element for multiplication is 1. One can see with a little thinking why the identity elements for both operations cannot be the same number. What this means, though, is that 0 can never fit into the multiplication system well, the way our other numbers do (since it has to be compatible with addition of course). So multiplication by 0 gives 0 always (there is no number like that for addition); and the domain of division (which has to be defined in terms of multiplication) cannot include 0. For more reading, look up the definition of (abelian) groups, then rings, then fields. Groups are like numbers with only addition; rings add compatible multiplication (but not necessarily division - think multiplication but with only integers); fields add compatible division. There are good reasons to _not_ ask what 0/0 is. To a mathematician to divide by zero is the same as to divide by chair or something like that. It's just outside the scope of what division is.

>>690532126
Blood can't be alkaline though. It's literally full of organic compounds.

>>690530365
You can. You can say "I love a number of retards, and that number is zero." There is nothing wrong with that statement, just misleading.

>>690531974
Isn't this thread the funniest shit you've ever seen? People walk around every day acting like they don't give a shit about math, then when it comes down to it everyone wants to pretend they understand it.

File: 1448002324624.jpg (115 KB, 1920x1080) Image search: [Google]

115 KB, 1920x1080

>>690531612
>into empty spaces
>spaces
>plural
>more than one
>MFW

>>690532311
t.roleplayer

>>690523947
Fuck you for bringing this shit up again I once was literally about to kill myself for this.

Ok, so the problem itself it pretty fucked up itself. So let's say you have x/y=a. For any value of a, the graph looks like it crosses 0 when it reaches 0. So can it be 0? NO!

so x/y=a which makes x=ya.

let's assume they both are 0

0=0a. That's not much of an equation as a fundamental theorem in arithmetic. Any number works for this. ANY number works when you plug it into this equation. So let's say you have x, which equals 0/0. Would x∈R? Yeah probably not since it can be more than one value. Can it be that x⊂R (well, x⊂C since 0*i=0), or even x=R (well, x=C since, again, 0*i=0)? NO, BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN X IS ALL THE NUMBERS AS A SET, WHICH IT IS NOT!

So if you have x=0/0, x can be any number which would work, algebraically

fuck you op

>>690532127

Goto
>>690527073
http://m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=limit+0%2Fx+as+x+approaches+0&x=0&y=0

>>690532215
>general description
A general description is not a definition.

>>690532126
Nobody remembers what alkaline means. You're trolling. What a terrible example. They all just think of it in the hippy way. None of them would relate that to pH.

>>690531842

This is the most inspirational thing I've read in a long time.

So what your saying is...

0/0 = 420? sure why not
0/0 = 94jt903jq90jt09q34? sure why not
0/0 = big tits playing piano? sure why not

etc...

>>690532407
You must be shit at parking.

>>690532439
Good... Thing... Nobody... Was trying to define anything? Right? That would be what I was doing, providing a general description? You're trying way too hard kiddo. It's past your bedtime.

>>690531842
WOAH BRO DONT SAY LIMIT BRO WE GOT HEAVY MATHFAGS WHO WANT TO INSIST THATS INCORRECT

>queerlords

>>690532555
>kiddo
Projecting

>>690532437
That's as x approaches 0. If you go x/0 as x approaches 0, you'll get complex infinity.
That's not how it works, using approaches doesn't mean equal in this problem.

>>690532437
There is no approach, this is a waste of limit notation.
The values in this "sequence" are all identical.

>>690532545
I'm just okay at it, tbh.

>>690532544
no, it's that it's that k has to be an element in the complex plane

>>690532544
Omfg read the fucking text again. Your reading skills can't be so fucking wrong.

>>690532311
Nice dubs and yes. I'm used to physicists arguing about Tensors and Non-linear maps as if they knew what the fuck they were talking about, but this thread right here has so much silly claims in it that it comes out as entertaining at the very least.

>>690532895
Yet you don't understand the artificial denomination of space into individual spaces.

>>690526786
That's how division are defined though

>>690524593
You might wanna check that typo

>>690533016
I'm >>690530052, am I nigger? I feel like my simple explanation was not that out of control incorrect.

File: tmp_5632-1464562464674841936222.gif (2 MB, 640x272) Image search: [Google]

2 MB, 640x272

>>690527817
>0 is not a number

>>690530052
No, stop using limits, you're going to get different results.

>>690532685
>>690532728
lim{x -> 0} x/x^3 = infinity
lim{x -> 0} x/x = 1
lim{x -> 0} x^2/x = 0

0/0 = undefined

>>690530052
This gave me cancer

File: tmp_5632-1425660893179-1092033147.png (24 KB, 954x539) Image search: [Google]

24 KB, 954x539

>>690528772
>0 is not a number

>>690533016
I love that instead of just admitting he was totally ignorant and asking a totally valid question, OP went to great lengths to try prove he was brilliant and failed miserably

>>690527817
oh shit so I don't exist for having 0 friends?

>>690533510
Well, yeah, but I was talking about the problem 0/0 itself. The fact that using limits gives different problems is why it doesn't work

>>690533189
You explanation is wrong, the rightest one in this thread is this >>690532292 but even then he may not know about extended algebras where division by zero is defined.
Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory

It's not an analytical problem, but an algebraic one. Your function 1/x, if we consider it as a function from an interval on the reals, is simply not defined in zero. That's because the reals are a field (or a body, whatever). It's not a simple as you put. In abstract algebra the question "division by zero" is addressed and has been addressed for ages, and the answer is complicated. Surely few people in this thread would be able to understand the reasoning behind it, simply because it requires a lot of advanced math knowledge.

>>690533918
Using limits demonstrates that 0/0 is undefined. Problem solved.

>>690533918
the problem 0/0 doesn't mean anything. dividing by 0 doesn't either, which is why limits exist in the first place.

>>690523947
Dividing by zero is fucking stupid and null. If you can;t understand the concept then just give up. Math is just symbols with relative meaning. If you can't grasp that then your ability to think is just as null as the outcome you seek.

>>690534105
Well, yeah good point

>>690532987

>You have arrived at a mathematical expression that could be any arbitrary value

["big tits playing a piano" , "huge tits playing a banjo" , "medium sized tits resting on a table", ...] = any arbitrary value.

Now if your telling me that my indeterminately sized set of tits playing musical instruments or setting upon things cannot satisfy an arbitrary value, then fuck.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule

>>690523947
Ok so let's start with the one that makes sense. 0÷0 =inf. Zero can go into anything any unending amount of times because no matter how many times you place zero into another number including itself, it will never add up to anything more than zero. And thus an unlimited amount of times.

However when performing devision your basically saying "how many of this number can i shove together before I get this number" and so devision only really works when your starting number (in this case the one) is smaller than the dividend (is that the right word? I don't usually try to math) so op ask yourself how many 1's are in the number zero? Is the answer zero? Is the answer something different? Also im pretty sure the rules of devision change when using negative numbers fractions and percentages

>>690534177
limits exist for reasons other than finding the value at a singe point at a function that can be simplified/has holes

>>690533097
I think I do. Aren't we talking about dividing no space at all into more no space at all? How do we come out with plurality?

Or is this some dumb shit dealing with the theoretical infinite space in between space?

Either way, I've scraped a couple hub caps in my day.

>>690534087
Also, when you say "infinite" I doubt you know what you're talking about. There are a lot a type of infinities (as paradoxical as it may sounds, there are infinite type of infinities, or rather infinite sizes of infinity), and the reals have a certain cardinality, i.e. a particular size of infinity. In set theory though, when you say "infinity" you need to state what kind you're talking about: the knowledge of Analysis only (I don't consider calculus to be mathematics) are not enough to answer your question.

>>690534657
yes