[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
/sci/ - Science & Math

You cannot reply anymore.

Isn't the fact that zero division is undefined proof that math is invented and not discovered?
>>
>>12943929
no
>>
>>12943929
Why is infinity - infinity not 0?
>>
>>12943929
>zero division is undefined
It is perfectly-well defined as dividing something into zero equally-size parts.
The problem is zero parts means no division was done, so division by zero cannot be done.
This is not a difficult problem, except perhaps for those those who do not understand division.
>>
>>12944001
infinities vary
>>
>>12944001
If you think of subtraction as reducing the number the amount of times listed, why would you stop at 0? It's minus infinity, so you never stop subtracting. You would just carry on past 0 to -infinity.
>>
>>12943945
Why?
>>
>>12943929
division by zero is undefined because it isn't definable without a contradiction.

Assume 1/0=c for some number c. Then (1*0)/0= c*0 implies 1=0, a contradiction I suppose. This contradiction proof assume 0/0=1.
>>
>>12944063
I guess you could replace 1 with any number a so that a=0 follows, which implies that no numbers except for 0 exist.
>>
>>12943929
Both zero and infinity don’t exist. If they were so “obvious” and “natural” then how come they have been introduced to maths quite late?
>>
>>12944063
square root of -1 is undefined because it isn't definable without a contradiction.

assume i^2 = -1 for some number i. then -1 <1 implies -i < i, which in turn implies

-i^2 < i^2
1 < -1,

a contradiction. this contradiction proof assumes i^2 = -1.
>>
>>12944120
>then -1 <1 implies -i < i,
Do you mean -1 <1 implies i < -i?
>>
File: 1609428312295.jpg (39 KB, 490x350)
39 KB JPG
>>12944120
>>
Infinity is Not a Number. It is a fucking limit. It is not a fucking number.
>>
>>12944152
if you assume i < 0, then

-1 < 1
-i > i
-i^2 < i^2
1 < -1

same thing.

>>12944157
you have no argument
>>
>>12944120
wow what a tard.
-1 < 1
(-1)^2 < 1^2
1 < 1

>>
>>12944074
found the virgin
>>
>>12944191
x^2 is not monotone. you must be over 18 to post here.
>>
>>12944001
Suppose you have an infinite set of coins labeled with the natural numbers.

Take away every coin. Then 0 coins remain.
∞ - ∞ = 0

Take away every coin except the first. Then 1 coin remains.
∞ - ∞ = 1

Take away every coin except the first 2. Then 2 coins remain.
∞ - ∞ = 2

Take away every odd coin. Then ∞ coins remain.
∞ - ∞ = ∞

There's no way to assign it a consistent value.
>>
>>12944200
Exactly my point look at the post im refering to
>>
>>12944205
there's no squaring in that post
>>
>>12944120
>>12944209
>-i^2 < i^2
>>
>>12944219
multiplication by i, not squaring
>>
>>12943929
axioms are invented.
the consequences of axioms are discovered.
the trick is to see about what kind of things your set of axiom applies.
>>
>>12944222
Well if so you made the mistake of

-1 < 1
-1*-1 < 1*-1
1 < -1
>>
>>12944231
anon, we've been over this. it doesn't matter if i preserves or reverses the inequality sign. you obtain 1 < -1 in both cases.
>>
>>12943929
>ctrl+f wheel
>0 results
Absolute state of /his/
>>
>>12943929
its proof 0 and infinity arent valid concepts, everything else is real
>>
>>12944246
wheels don't solve anything, that T looking thing is just another poorly defined non-number

Realistically, 0/0 should equal 'x', the variable
>>
>>12944484
What if I need more than one variable?
>>
>>12944487
gee idk, maybe the inventors of upside-down 'T' should have thought of that.

use any letter you want
>>
>>12943929
how so?
>>
>>12944498
You mean ⊥
It's pronounced "bottom"
It usually refers to the false proposition, but is generally appropriated to areas of math where you need "definedness"
>>
>>12944503
>refers to the false proposition
so it's completely meaningless schizo drivel

just write 0/0=x, where x is any element in any algebraic field and call it done
>>
>>12944523
schizo
>>
File: 8pej8cr6ojt41.jpg (78 KB, 1200x680)
78 KB JPG
1/0 = infinity
easy
>>
>>12944523
>algebraic field
Doesn't considering "algebraic" already presuppose a variable
>>
>>12943929
It means that our world is inherently flawed.
Seriously, if God was a game designer he would be fired or work for Bethesda.
>>
File: 1611811280656.png (59 KB, 532x512)
59 KB PNG
>>12944063
>division by zero is undefined because it isn't definable without a contradiction.
That's WRONG you fucking retard. There's a whole field that studies the many beautiful structures where division by zero is meaningful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory?wprov=sfla1
>>
>>12944597
>beautiful
>>>/x/
>>
>>12943929
OP, you should stop breathing through your mouth so much, you have no idea what you are talking about.
>>
>>12944167
i has argument pi/2
>>
>>12943929
>invented and not discovered?
Explain the difference between an invention and a discovery.
>>
>>12943929
division by zero was originally defined in Brahmagupta's axioms as 0. Rigorists realised that this definition was retarded and any other definition would be arbitrary and equally retarded, hence zero-division is undefined.

A thread got deleted so this once could be posted.
>>
Math is just a set of conventions. If we would change some conventions the whole field would collapse so we keep this field sort of working and when we are doing something we think is new we just redevine ever simbol mankind has ever thought about and there you have it a new study field.
>>
File: 1585597375794.png (95 KB, 220x229)
95 KB PNG
>>12944702
>>>>/x/
why are ye fearful, oh ye of little faith?

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.