Comments on: Dividing by Zero

By: bartekko

bartekko — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 17:14:58 +0000

a commentary to my own commentary:
now I see it’s similar to wikipedias explanation,
and is supported by physics
not in the apple/men way
but what happens if we stop something moving in 0 milimeters?
the g-force for it would reach infinity

By: bartekko

bartekko — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 17:09:49 +0000

I, for sake of my awesomeness, use a self made explanation:
1.)since when dividing 2/2 you get 1…
(
2.)and dividing 2/0,5 gets 4…
(
3.)2/0.25=8
(
4.)MAGIC
(
5.)2/0.[0]1 would give [9]
(
6.) and 2/0= infinity
wait, what? am I so stupid or so awesomely bright?
maybe I’m simply missing something

By: bird houses for sale

bird houses for sale — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 01:51:23 +0000

There are some really good points you made in your post…very insightful

By: Roark R

Roark R — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:27:21 +0000

It took me an hour to understand it, but what he’s pretty much saying, (and this is brought up in the comments) is that nothing/nothing=everything. It doesn’t make sense, but it makes perfect sense, because dividing nothing by nothing also doesn’t make sense. Just like how physics will slowly find out that nothing is real.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:15:18 +0000

What can you achieve with nullity that you can’t with an error message on a calculator?
Whiteboard showing the symbol for nullity (bottom)
Dr Anderson’s symbol for nullity (bottom)

“Nullity has a precise arithmetical value. The trans-real arithmetic is total, and complete, and contains real arithmetic as a sub-set.

“You can calculate values with nullity and those are meaningful. The arithmetic is simpler than IEEE-float.

“Trans-real numbers I have defined to be the real numbers augmented with plus infinity, minus infinity, and nullity.

“What I have done is to take algorithms from arithmetic that happen to work for division by zero, collected them together, developed them as algorithms, proved that they’re consistent, then axiomatising it and proving it by computer.”

By: Non-existent

Non-existent — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:11:32 +0000

In the video, he multiplies 1/0 by 0/1, and he calls 0/1 the reciprocal. The definition of reciprocal is a number whose product is 1 when multiplied by a certain number. 1/0 x 0/1 does not equal one. He fails.

By: Al

Al — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:21:09 +0000

Defining 1/0 as a number k, so that 0*k = 1 is not useful. See:

If 0 * k = 1, then (0 + 0)*k = 1, then you would use the distributive law 0*k + 0*k = 1, but that’s 2!

So adding k to the reals, you obtain no field.

By: medyum

medyum — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:04:31 +0000

Back in the 70s I took a course on calculus through non-standard analysis which was based on extending the real numbers so that things like dx that went to zero were actual numbers. It was weird. First we extended the integers into hyper-integers that were larger than any possible integers. Then we extended the reals using the inverses of the hyper-integers and some extended arithmetic. We actually managed to do a derivative or two by multiplying by dx. I doubt you can actually divide by zero, but you can divide by dx which can get closer to zero than any real number.

By: Nulono

Nulono — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:41:49 +0000

So where does “nullity” lie in relation to the complex plane?

By: scatha

scatha — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:14:10 +0000

The most intuitive result for n/0 for all n except zero is: infinity
the problem is: there are two possible results: positive inf and also negative inf.

if you look at the graph of y=1/x you’ll see what i mean

but then, i should check if there is a meaningful solution within the range of rubtsov’s new “delta”-numbers