(I have to much time on my hands)

Currently,ndivided by zero(0) is undefined.

Why? What are your thoughts on this, and any possible theories for a definition forn/0 ?

********My Theories********

If you have gotten this far, thank you for your time, if you understood and could follow me, even better. Either way, all comments, thoughts, or theories would be much appreciated. Again, thanks for your time and input.Code:Example 1.1: 1 | 2 | 3 5 * 6 = 30 | 30 / 5 = 6 | 30 / 6 = 5 10 * 3 = 30 | 30 / 10 = 3 | 30 / 3 = 10 Example 1.2: 1 | 2 | 3 0 * 5 = 0 | 0 / 0 = ? | 0 / 5 = ? 0 * 10 = 0 | 0 / 0 = ? | 0 / 10 = ? In example 1.1, If two numbers are multiplied together, their product divided by one of the numbers shouldonlyequal the other number. This is because the only way to reach the product with the given number is to multiply it(or add it to itself)xamount of times, wherexis the other number. Of course, the same should apply to division by zero, and if you think about, it indeed does in column three of example 1.2. Zero divided by zero, however, could be any given number, because any number multiplied by zero equals zero. This is where one of the problems of defining division by zero arises. In one case, where zero is divided by a non-zero number, It follows basic rules, but in the other, zero divided by zero, it is impossible to tell what it should be. What could you put in there to make the statement always correct? Now for the next part: Example 2.1: 2 / 0 = ? 10 / 0 = ? The same as the zero divided by zero case, except with a new twist: zero multiplied by anything willneverequal a number other than zero, but now we're trying to divide a number by another number that would never multiply into it?! That the denominator should multiply into the numerator is essential in the multiplication/division relationships! Since it is impossible to achieve an answer through the former methods of thought, I propose a new one. In division, you basically take the numerator and put equal amounts of it into a number of groups equal to the denominator and finding out the number in any given group. Example 3.1: 10 put equally into 5 groups = 2 in any group 30 put equally into 3 groups = 10 in any group Following this method, (this could be a bit confusing: )putting a number into zero groups should equal zero in any of the group (The confusing bit: even though there are no groups..), so: Example 3.2: 10 put equally into 0 groups = 0 in any group 30 put equally into 0 groups = 0 in any group Problem: what happened to the initial amount? If this were done with energy, which can be neither created nor destroyed, this would be impossible. So now I propose, in conjunction with this, that a special convention be applied to this case. A convention such as I mentioned has already been entered into algebraic math: A negative number has norealsquare root, but this has been solved by putting anion the outside of the square in this way: Example 4.1:i^0 = 1i^1 =ii^2 = -1i^3 = -ii^4 = 1i^5 =ii^6 = -1i^7 = -ietc. Example 4.2: root -16 = root (16 *i^2) =i(root 16) = 4iroot -49 = root (49 *i^2) =i(root 49) = 7i2i= 2i2i^2 = -2 2i^3 = 2(-i) 2i^4 = 2 Use of a convention such as this would definitely help in the continuance of a problem without a stall at the point of division by zero. How to implement this convention presents yet another problem, but which I, at this time, unfortunately have no idea how to do.