Problem of Dividing By Zero Solved

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 3 of 3 First 123
• Dec 9th 2006, 01:53 PM
The Pondermatic
I think the way to treat 0/0 is to think about how you got to it in the first place.

For example, if you got a slop of 0/0 then x1-x2 must be 0 and y1 - y2 must be zero. The only way that could happen is if x1 = x2 and y1 = y2, so a slope of 0/0 means you used the same point to find slope twice.
• Dec 9th 2006, 02:06 PM
Quick
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pondermatic
I think the way to treat 0/0 is to think about how you got to it in the first place.

For example, if you got a slop of 0/0 then x1-x2 must be 0 and y1 - y2 must be zero. The only way that could happen is if x1 = x2 and y1 = y2, so a slope of 0/0 means you used the same point to find slope twice.

1 point can be part of infinite amount of lines with different slopes, and thus 0/0 can equal anything.

And a line with the slope of 1/0 is straight up, and happens to be equal to a line with 2/0. Since all values of y come from the same coefficient, one could say that x/0 equals all numbers.

The problem is it doesn't :(
It doesn't equal any number. But I still like this way of looking at it.
• Dec 9th 2006, 02:07 PM
topsquark
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pondermatic
intl. design is NOT:
3. unscientific. The theory has come up with a way of quantatively telling whether inteeligence made something or not and many proven scientific theories support, through that method, the idea of intl. design.

This is news to me. If you are willing, could you share with me what you are referring to? I'm curious.

-Dan

If you are willing to continue this (about intelligent design) perhaps we should open a new thread on it. I leave that to whomever wants to talk about it.
• Dec 9th 2006, 02:44 PM
CaptainBlack
Quote:

Originally Posted by topsquark
This is news to me. If you are willing, could you share with me what you are referring to? I'm curious.

-Dan

If you are willing to continue this (about intelligent design) perhaps we should open a new thread on it. I leave that to whomever wants to talk about it.

Warning, I am very intolerant of religious threads and the over excitment
they are laible to produce.

RonL
• Dec 9th 2006, 03:25 PM
TriKri
Quote:

Originally Posted by Quick
And a line with the slope of 1/0 is straight up, and happens to be equal to a line with 2/0. Since all values of y come from the same coefficient, one could say that x/0 equals all numbers.

I would rather say that x/0 can equal any arbitrary number times infinity, which happens to equal infinity. Infinity times zero is at least undefined, but any arbitrary number (as in all numbers) times zero is just zero and not x.
• Dec 9th 2006, 03:41 PM
ThePerfectHacker
Quote:

Originally Posted by TriKri
I would rather say that x/0 can equal any arbitrary number times infinity, which happens to equal infinity. Infinity times zero is at least undefined, but any arbitrary number (as in all numbers) times zero is just zero and not x.

--------
I sent the "man" an e-mail. Asking him to explain it to me mathematically. Note, I am not saying he is wrong, but from what they show on the News he is. Also, I believe his work is not mathematically acceptable, however, it may be useful in computer science, which is his research field.
• Dec 9th 2006, 05:06 PM
TriKri
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker

Well, I don't say that it necessarily is that way, I still think that 1/0 should be undefined. But I prefer + infinity (excuse my last post in which I wrote + infinity) to Quick's suggestion that it could be any number, cause a line with "any slope" wouldn't pass through both (0, 0) and (0, 1).
• Dec 9th 2006, 05:59 PM
The Pondermatic
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
however, it may be useful in computer science, which is his research field.

His so-called "nullity" already exists as, as several people have pointed out, NaN. The next time a Java program asks you to type in a number, type in NaN and see what happens. :D
• Dec 9th 2006, 09:30 PM
Quick
Quote:

Originally Posted by TriKri
Quick's suggestion that it could be any number, cause a line with "any slope" wouldn't pass through both (0, 0) and (0, 1).

Where did you get this?

I said an infinite amount of lines can pass through one point.

I also said that way was an incorrect way of looking at it, though I like how it's set up
• Dec 10th 2006, 12:13 PM
TriKri
Quote:

Originally Posted by Quick
And a line with the slope of 1/0 is straight up, and happens to be equal to a line with 2/0. Since all values of y come from the same coefficient, one could say that x/0 equals all numbers.

Here's where i got it from, I interpreted what you wrote.

But I didn't mean to put it like you think it is that way even if it appeals to you, I'm sorry if I did.
• Dec 10th 2006, 12:29 PM
The Pondermatic
Quote:

Originally Posted by topsquark
This is news to me. If you are willing, could you share with me what you are referring to? I'm curious.

-Dan

If you are willing to continue this (about intelligent design) perhaps we should open a new thread on it. I leave that to whomever wants to talk about it.

Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information: Dembski, William A. A paper on "complex, sepcified information," which is used to test things to see whether or not they have been made by someone or something intelligent.
Access Research Network The website the parper was on which supports intelligent design.
• Dec 10th 2006, 12:58 PM
CaptainBlack
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pondermatic
Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information: Dembski, William A. A paper on "complex, sepcified information," which is used to test things to see whether or not they have been made by someone or something intelligent.
Access Research Network The website the parper was on which supports intelligent design.

Long winded and as far as I can tell devoid of significant content.

RonL
• Dec 10th 2006, 06:35 PM
topsquark
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pondermatic
Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information: Dembski, William A. A paper on "complex, sepcified information," which is used to test things to see whether or not they have been made by someone or something intelligent.
Access Research Network The website the parper was on which supports intelligent design.

I'm afraid I have to agree with CaptainBlack on this. However I will say that it is (for my part) a new approach to the problem. Unfortunatly I know enough about Chaos Theory to say that I don't think it will provide valid results. The problem is that nonlinear systems (as life very probably is) can contain rich and complicated structures that are based on very simple rules. So "information" that is considered complex enough to require a creator might still be viably produced by a simple nonlinear system. I don't see how the author would be able to tell the difference. (Of course, I don't know much about information theory, so what I just said could be a load of bull! :) )

-Dan
• Dec 11th 2006, 08:00 PM
ThePerfectHacker
I am currently speaking with the person who created these numbers. This was not a new discovery, it was first made in 1997 by him. As you expected it was a generalization of the extended number line. But there is one important point,
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
...but not recognized by the math community.

I believe the reason why (I have to wait for his official answer) is that he used a computer to prove consistency in logic. This is like the 4 colour theorem, rejected by math computer because it was solved via computers.

He mentioned to me a kind of algebra. As I was correct you cannot have a ring where "division by zero" is permitted (applause), however there is a specific kind of algebra structcure, called a "wheel". Given any commutative ring it can be extened to a wheel. That is essentially what he did, he transformed the reals (a commutative ring) into a wheel.
• Dec 12th 2006, 05:05 AM
topsquark
Fascinating. However I have difficulty imagining the use of such a structure.

-Dan
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 3 of 3 First 123