**Warning: Math**

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Negative
psi0nic: two words for you: Private forums ! JP promised me yesterday he'd have them up by the end of the day ;) . Well, they're not up yet, but I guess they'll be soon...

---

And this would be a day in which year BC? :D

I still maintain that the limit of A/0 is infinity, it IS undefined, but it's only undefined because our mathmatics can't handle it. But I don't think of it as zero. It's true there is an asymptote, and on one side it goes down to negative infinity, and on the other side it decreases from positive infinity, and between them there is a jump from negative infinity to positive infinity... And precisely in the middle of the jump is a combination of infinity, zero, and negative infinity...

Bleh. What was the question again? :D

Can we just say it's weird and leave it at that? :P As for the original question of trying to make it easier to deal with div/0 problems, Limits look the way to go for me. You can at least determine if it is an asymptote or a little gap, and if it is the gap a limit exists, so you can use that for the curve...

WTH am I doing math NOW? I have it in an hour...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Terr
I still maintain that the limit of A/0 is infinity, it IS undefined, but it's only undefined because our mathmatics can't handle it.

---

Code:

---

Lim        A
x->0    ----  = +- Infinity (depending on the side you
          X                        approach from)

---

Who said that a pie divided into 0 pieces is what you had before? Seriously, that would be 1 piece then and therefore 30/1, NOT 30/0. Think about it.

If you take ANY university level math class it is always assumed that you are unable to divide by zero because zero is not a number, it is only an idea. You can't count zero because there is nothing to count.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stronzo

Who said that a pie divided into 0 pieces is what you had before? Seriously, that would be 1 piece then and therefore 30/1, NOT 30/0. Think about it.

---

Check your math: 30/1 is 30, not 1.
And I have thought about it. Consider it this way: dividing by zero is not possible, it is an invalid operation. Therefore, when you fail to do something (in this case, divide a pie by zero), the situation hasn't changed, and you are still left with whatever you started with.

:D

I'd continue responding, but the thread is starting to get silly. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chsh


Check your math: 30/1 is 30, not 1.

---

Er, I meant 1/1 = 1. 1/0 != 1. We only have one pie ;)

I think this post was started by someone who hasn't done much high level math. My advice is take some more math courses before you try to argue about this again.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stronzo

Er, I meant 1/1 = 1. 1/0 != 1. We only have one pie ;)

I think this post was started by someone who hasn't done much high level math. My advice is take some more math courses before you try to argue about this again.

---

I was kinda wondering where you got the 30 from... ;)

Couple of things:

1.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stronzo
I think this post was started by someone who hasn't done much high level math. My advice is take some more math courses before you try to argue about this again.

---

I'm only a sophomore, in high school, taking Algebra II. This problem however, has always bugged me. I believe that the universe, and therefore math(and vice versa) have absolute rules and can have no "undefined"s, otherwise, the universe would eventually have a runtime error, and who knows what would happen then.
btw, I've always had a great affinity for math, so just because I haven't taken higher courses does not mean I can't understand any of this.

2.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Negative

Code:

---

Premise: a = b

1.  a²=ab
Because a = b

2.  a² + a² = a² + ab
Add a²

3.  2a² = a² + ab
x + x = 2x

4.  2a² - 2ab = a² + ab - 2ab
Add -2ab

5.  2a² - 2ab = a² - ab
xy - 2xy = -xy

6.  2(a² - ab) = 1(a² - ab)
Single out the factors

7.  {2(a² - ab)} / {a² - ab} = {1(a² - ab)} / {a² - ab}
I'll get to this one in a few...

2 = 1

---

There you go: 2 = 1

A practical example:

Code:

---

Premise: a=2 and b=2

1.  2² = 2 x 2
2.  4 + 4 = 4 + 4
3.  2 x 4 = 4 + 4
4.  2 x 4 - 8 = 4 + 4 - 8
5.  2 x 4 - 2 x 4 = 4 - 4
6.  2(4 - 4) = 1(4 - 4)

---

---

There's an error in your math:

Code:

---

Start with step 4:
4.  2a² - 2ab = a² + ab - 2ab
    2 x 4 - 8 = 4 + 4 - 8

5.  2a² - 2a² = a² + a² - 2a²
    To much simplify what you're saying, occurences of ab
are replaced with simply a², since a = b and b essentially
becomes a.

6.  2a² - 2a² = 2a² - 2a²
    a² + a² = 2a²
    8 - 8 = 8 - 8


7.  0 = 0
    Follow Through!

---

The error is that it was needlessly complicated and circumventing [ie: from 4 + 4 - 8 to 4 - 4 (8 - 4 instead of 4 + 4)]. You also factored instead of just following through simply with the math. Even with your method though, if you followed through you would have ended with the same result as I did.

I don't mean to be disrespectful or anything, it's just that you should check your math. If I missed or misunderstood anything, however, please tell meOriginally posted by Negative

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kezil
There's an error in your math:

Code:

---

Start with step 4:
4.  2a² - 2ab = a² + ab - 2ab
    2 x 4 - 8 = 4 + 4 - 8

5.  2a² - 2a² = a² + a² - 2a²

---

To much simplify what you're saying, occurences of ab
are replaced with simply a², since a = b and b essentially
becomes a.

---

That's not the point, Kezil... The math is correct until step 7. In step 7 it goes wrong because of the division by zero. I don't need to check my math for that: Pythagoras already did that some 2000 years ago. What you are trying to say is that I can't do things like

Code:

---

2a² - 2ab = a² + ab - 2ab
{(8/2) x a²} - {16/8 x (a x b)} = {a x a} + {a x b} - {750/375 x (a x b)}

---

because I complicate things? Let me tell you something: there's nothing wrong with the math. I'm pretty sure everyone else will agree with that ;)
Next time I'll prove to you that the sum of a quadrangle's corners = 370 degrees ;)

Quote:

---

The error is that it was needlessly complicated and circumventing [ie: from 4 + 4 - 8 to 4 - 4 (8 - 4 instead of 4 + 4)]. You also factored instead of just following through simply with the math. Even with your method though, if you followed through you would have ended with the same result as I did.

---

Again, nothing wrong with complicating...
And MY 7th step is based on the premises that you CAN divide by zero. My example isn't correct if you allow division by zero ==> Conclusion: Don't divide by zero ;)
Well, that is if you follow the rules: in math, something is right, and if it isn't, it's wrong. (Sorry, Matty-Cross ;) ).

Quote:

---

I don't mean to be disrespectful or anything, it's just that you should check your math. If I missed or misunderstood anything, however, please tell

---

You missed something ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Stronzo
If you take ANY university level math class it is always assumed that you are unable to divide by zero because zero is not a number, it is only an idea. You can't count zero because there is nothing to count.

---

Well Stronzo, math is BASED on IDEAS... I' ve never seen a circle in my entire life i.e. Nature doesn't have perfect circles: A circle is only an idea ;)

Quote:

---

I think this post was started by someone who hasn't done much high level math. My advice is take some more math courses before you try to argue about this again

---

The O.P. didn't argue about it, he posted an idea... I love this thread, don't you? ;)

(I didn't think that last post was to clear...)

Let me explain a few things about my last post:

I'm not saying making something complicated means it's wrong (though I know it sounded like it), just that for the purposes of explaining it is not generally a good idea.

Also, I'm sorry that my last post seemed like I was going on a smarter-than-thou basis, the whole point of it was basically to help you to correct an error if you made one(which it seems you didn't), or to get you to possibly explain the post a bit more clearly(which I would still like)

Sorry about any misinterpretations that last post caused, and thanks for the replies recieved so far.

...and so humble :)

Okay so lets look at this using apples. First you have 30 apples and 0 groups. Now you want to divide the 30 apples into 3 and then dispurse them evenly in the groups of 0. The key here is the groups. No matter how many apples we have we cannot put them into groups of zero. So we are left with a group of zero.

As terr said its rather simple in calculus.

Lets take 1 and divide it by a number lets say .5. Now if .5 approaches 0 it will gradually increase the answer therefore approaching infinity. So i see your point or at least the point i hope you are trying to make which is a good one.

Lets take a book, throw it in ther air and it will most definetly hit the ground right. No argument there.....unless you are using a limit which says that the book cannot actually hit the floor because if we take the distance and gradually approach it to zero (zero of course being the floor) then the distance can be infinetly divided to become closer and closer to the floor. So if this were true then it never really did hit the floor its still just getting closer and closer.
The reason for this error is that calculus is an aproximation used to define things un-explainable...to try and approach or get a close as we can to the answer. It is lets say 99.99 percent true