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.
Expanding on your thought.Originally Posted by The Pondermatic
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.
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.
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.
Please, stop, not here.
--------
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.
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).
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
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,
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.
  |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
