how much is x divided by zero
you idiot you dont divide by 0
x
>>7702172
>divide by 0
you would destroy the universe if you do that.
it's infinity for x not equal to zero
>>7702172
x/0 = x/h
x/h = H
you're welcome universe
>>7702194
this is basically right btw
there is no result for that because there is no number that when multiplied by 0 equals a number (other than 0). so if x/0 = m, this would imply m*0=x which is impossible if x isnt 0. so x/0 doesnt exist, not infinity not nothing
When you're asking how many times does nothing go into something, when should the answer be anything but everything?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRRolKTlF6Q
>>7702194
Why isn't it negative infinty?
>>7702172
Any real number you want it to be.
>>7702194
>>7702279
>>7702393
Technically, the correct answer is complex infinity, not infinity. Of course you get to see this when you take complex analysis, but before that the answer is undefined because that shit just doesn't exist in real numbers, when you approach zero from the left using limits the answer is negative infinity and from the right is positive infinity, so a two sided limit doesn't exist. You could look up Riemman sphere if you are interested in complex infinity.
>>7702294
x/0 doesnt exist however the limit as x -> 0 is infinity. if you start with 1/x = 1 for x = 1 and then progressively make x smaller 1/x becomes arbitrarily large for an arbitrarily small x
>>7702172
I don't understand, if something is divided by nothing, aka zero, then shouldn't it equal itself? Shouldn't 1 divided by zero be 1, as it was divided by nothing?
>>7702701
The correct terminology wouldn't by devided by, it would be devided into groups of. And this doesn't work well for 0. If you decide and number into no groups it doesn't make sense. That is why this way of thinking of devision only works well for numbers other than 0.
>>7702701
It's called, "Undefined." It's not that it doesn't equal a value... it's that the value is now equal to something that does not fit the original definition of the numbers that were provided for it.
Yes, it does equal something. We haven't defined what it is yet. (Well, we might have I'm just being lazy about figuring that out.)
>>7702302
>nothing
zero is not nothing, fgt pls
>>7702730
>It's called, "Undefined."
Yes, and that's wrong.
The operation of dividing something into zero equal parts is perfectly well-defined, but it's operationally impossible.
Jesus
Fucking
Christ
>>7702302
Cause infinitely many nothings does not fill an anything so the condition is not satisfied.
>>7703008
>well defined refers to process.
Nah m8.
A defined statement that yields no answer. How can an undefined statement have an answer?
Its enough
>>7702172
you have calculator, don't you? go on and compute it by yourself :^)
