/tech/ - Soyence and Technology

>>7707 (OP)
Zero isn’t a number so you can what ever you want with it

meds

>>7707 (OP)
Who cares?

>can you disprove this without using useful words that provide semantic context to your statement
no retard lmao

>>7707 (OP)
never heard of limits/calculus award.

>>7707 (OP)
blud was snoozin on his calc 101 class 💀💀💀💀💀💀

>>7949
never heard of wheel theory award

>>7707 (OP)
The expression 0/0 is actually undefined in mathematics, not equal to 0.
To disprove that 0/0 = 0, I'll show you a contradiction that would arise if we accepted this claim:
If 0/0 = 0, then:
0/0 = 0
Multiply both sides by 0:
0 = 0 × 0
0 = 0
This seems fine, but let's try another approach:
If 0/0 = 0, then:
0/0 = 0
But we could equally argue that 0/0 = 1 because:
If 0/0 = 1, then:
0 = 0 × 1
0 = 0
Or even that 0/0 = 42 because:
If 0/0 = 42, then:
0 = 0 × 42
0 = 0
This gives us 0/0 = 0 = 1 = 42, which is clearly a contradiction. Since we can "prove" that 0/0 equals any number using the same logic, 0/0 must be undefined rather than equal to any specific value.
This is why mathematicians consider division by zero to be undefined - it leads to logical contradictions when we try to assign it any particular value.

>>7943
?

>>7902
imagine not seeing the significance of this result

>>8281
Use this proof to do anything other than the proof itself.

>>8379
what are you saying?

>>8486
I'm saying fuck you.

>>8379
It's obvious

>>7707 (OP)
wait 0 = one zero = 0 * 1

any number divided by itself gives 1, e.g. 5/5=1
zero divided by any number gives 0, e.g. 0/5=0
given the above, the result of 0/0 is both 1 and 0, therefore it's undefined
qrd

Mathematician here. I don't know why I'm wasting my time on this raisinhole, but here is a rigorous explanation for why 0/0 is undefined.

When constructing a number system in higher mathematics, division is actually defined in terms of multiplicative inverses. For any number a, we define the multiplicative inverse of a, written a^-1, as the number such that a * a^-1 = a^-1 * a = 1, where 1 is the multiplicative identity. Then dividing a by b, or in other terms a/b, is actually equal to a * b^-1. So division is just a form of multiplication.

Then in order to divide by 0, we would need to find the multiplicative inverse of 0. But if that number existed, then 0 * 0^-1 = 1, and since the left hand side must be 0 we have 0 = 1, meaning our ring only has one element, making it the trivial ring.

>>9188
please explain >>8016
what are wheels used for in math

>>9190
I've never heard of it before now and a quick look seems to reveal it's never been used for anything useful. Basically just a meme invented by one guy.

>>9196
I wonder if there may be something which is more naturally considered, say, a wheel module. It seems to just be the generalization of the extended real line to commutative rings (though with no difference between -infty and +infty) but I also don't know of any interesting algebraic theory of the extended real line which is not inherited from just R.

>>7845
mathcel cope