**Warning: Math**

[Stronzo]

Originally posted by Kezil
I'm only a sophomore, in high school, taking Algebra II. This problem however, has always bugged me[/I]

Ya, sorry if I sounded like I was hacking you. I didn't mean to. It's just taken as a given in all my calculus courses to date that a denominator is never allowed to be zero. If I remember correctly, this has been a firmly held belief for hundreds if not thousands of years (probably back to pythagoreas, can't quite remember though).

I personally love math. Though I don't get the best marks in it, numbers are what makes sense to me (hence doing physics, math and computer science as the only courses I do at uni).

I have one for you. Use an abacus. Count out 30 beads. Now divide those beads into 5 groups. That's ok. Now put those beads back together. Divide them into zero groups. Hmm, I wonder if you abacus would crack and disintegrate?

[Negative]

Originally posted by blayde
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.

1 divided by 5 will always be 0.2
.5 != 1/5
.5 will never approach 0

So i see your point or at least the point i hope you are trying to make which is a good one.

I see Terr's point, but I don't see yours

Lets take a book, throw it in ther air and it will most definetly hit he ground right.

That's fysics and games of hazard... not math...

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.

Zeno's paradox... That's a paradox, meaning it's not true...

Zeno came up with this: a race between a turtle and Achilles: Achilles will never catch the turtle, because if Achilles reaches point A ( where the turtle was some milliseconds ago), the turtle will be at point B already. If Achilles reaches point B, the turtle is at point C already...

Why are you trying to use something the author himself didn't even belief?

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

It's 100 percent true... If it ain't 100 percent true, it ain't math
'This error' is not an error, it's a sophism...

[gaxprels]

Zero is allowed in the denominator if you are using l'hopital's rule to find the limit. However, this is not division, just finding a limit.

Also, a simpler formula for 1 = 2...

a = b
a^2 = b^2
a(b - a) = (b + a)(b - a)
a = b + a
a = 2a
1 = 2

step 4 is derived from division by zero.

Happy Hacking

[blayde]

hey negative,
well just wanted to clear something up. Since you ripped apart my forum about math. I believe it was called warning math.
Maybe you should think before you go running your mouth.
Just a thought.

1 divided by 5 will always be 0.2
.5 != 1/5
.5 will never approach 0
if you look, i wrote take .5 and make it approach zero. Meaning (I was hoping people on here were smart enough to figure this out) that .5 would gradually become smaller and smaller. Therefore reaching infinity not .2 and i think what you meant to say is 2 since 1/.5 is 2 not .2 nor 1/5. Maybe try remedial math and work your way up. I was just trying to help the kid out.
Oh yeah and about math being true. Advanced math is nothing more then complex theory that it almost always true. Math by definiton cannot be broken into simple true or untrue statements.
For the great uplifting Zeno's paradox that has nothing to do with my statement. Well actually i am unfamiliar with the zeon's paradox. Your explanation of it was ridiculous. Try and explain that a little better next time and maybe it will make sense and you can actually make a reasonable point rather then just getting you forum count up. If you get a kick out of being top forum man on AO and thats all you have going for you well then great more power to yah. But don't try to make others look bad because it just makes you look worse.

No hard feeling just try and be a little more accurate when you make ignorant statements

One more thing, about how its not a division problem its a limit. Well genius I know that and limits can be compared to a division problem where any whole number approaches zero. Thus the definition for a limit. Its funny how you losers try and act so smart and in the process look so stupid. Simple math errors, spouting off references to ideas you dont even really understand. Learn to learn from others not to try and trick others into thinking you are something you are not.

---blayde---
keep it coming

[Kezil]

First of all, I've said before that I'm still only in high school algebra II, and that I believed that is absolute, not that it truly is. I can make some really odd, but totally plausible ideas that you could not definitively disprove, but most would not believe.

Now for the real purpose of this post:

1. Hey Negative, I would love to see how to make the sum of quadrangle's corners = 370 degrees (I love things like that..i.e.: Three men pay thirty dollars total for rooms at a hotel. The bookkeeper finds they have been overcharged five dollars and ...)
btw, I think I finally got your post, very nice.

2. Here's another one for input: 0! = 1. Why?

3. And how about 0^0 = error. Why?(how do you get superscript?)

4. Crypto forum sounds good, could get some interesting math discussions there(and of course crypto discussions)

Thanks for all. This is so fun.

[gaxprels]

Kezil...

About 0!

consider 3! = 3 * 2 * 1 = 6

If you look at it as 3 * 2 * 1 * 0, it would be equal to 0. To prevent this, 0 when used in factorials is more of a terminating factor. If you program a recursive factorial program, 0 is the base case you are looking for. This is just one way of looking at it.

Blayde...

If any of your last post was directed at me, drink some liquid nitro and cool your jets. I wasn't directing that at anything you posted. I was just trying to give Kezil some more material to work with. Before you go calling people losers, you should try to get to know them first. Otherwise, it just makes you look like a loser.

Happy Hacking

[Kezil]

a factorial of a number, as you probably already know, is the product of the number and all before =! 0. But for 0, nothing comes before it, so 0! (at least in the way I'm thinking at the moment) = 0*nothing. that is what I meant. Thanks though

[Negative]

Originally posted by Blayde
i think what you meant to say is 2 since 1/.5 is 2 not .2 nor 1/5

This is what I said:

My original post
1 divided by 5 will always be 0.2

That is 1 / 5 , not 1 / .5 .
1 / 5 still is 0.2 last time I checked

Originally posted by Blayde
hey negative,
well just wanted to clear something up. Since you ripped apart my forum about math.

It's not your thread. Kezil started it, so he'll decide what is valuable or not...
A little reminder:

Originally posted by Kezil
Currently, n divided by zero(0) is undefined.
Why? What are your thoughts on this, and any possible theories for a definition for n/0 ?

Originally posted by Blayde
I was hoping people on here were smart enough to figure this out

and

Well genius I know that

and

Its funny how you losers try and act so smart and in the process look so stupid.

--> Read Gaxprels' reply

Well actually i am unfamiliar with the zeon's paradox. Your explanation of it was ridiculous. Try and explain that a little better next time

Zeno of Elea (ca. 490 BC).
Well, your own example explains it much better than mine does, I have to agree on that one
-->

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.

Replace the book with an arrow, and the floor with a target, and you have Zeno's original paradox, so it DOES have something to do with your statement.

Now for the real purpose of this post :

Originally posted by Kezil
Hey Negative, I would love to see how to make the sum of quadrangle's corners = 370 degrees

See the attachment for the figure...

We start with the quadrangle ABCD:

We know that:

AD = BC
LA > 90°
LB = 90°

I'll 'proove' that LA = LB

1. AS = BS
2. DS = CS
3. AD = BC

==> LSAD = LSBC

4. AS = SB, meaning the triangle ABS is isosceles (there you go, I learned a new English word today).

==> LSAB = LSBA

==> LA = LSAD - LSAB = LSBC - LSBA = LB

There you go...

Edit: damn, I forgot the attachment... --> see my next post

[Negative]

Here's the attachment

[chsh]

Well, while we're on the subject of math, I may as well point out that 0.9999... = 1 (where ... indicates an infinitely repeating number).

1/3 + 2/3 = 3/3
or in decimal form:
0.333... + 0.666... = 0.999...

Therefore 0.999... must equal 1.

The wonders of infinity.