If any number multiplied by 0 is 0 and dividing by a number gives you the original number you multiplied...

Consider the following example.

When you divide something by something else what you are doing is splitting something into so many equal groups, with the solution being the number of items in a individual group.

Thusly picture how retarded it is to ask for them to be sorted into zero groups, and what is the number of items in that group.

By dividing by zero, your asking me to count the number of something that doesn't exist.

Thusly you can stick anything on top, the fact it's divided by zero means you will have to count something that doesn't exist.

You didn't.

>is undefined
Well he just did define it.

Math isn't some strict set of rules. You can do what you want, and if you don't watch out you create a system that's inconsistent
(and inconsistent merely means that for any proposition you can also prove it's negation - that sucks very much but isn't the end of the world either. You're just looking at formal frameworks)
Some of the frameworks have tremendously important applications and thus these frameworks are taught to people.

There's doesn't have to be more to it than this - unless you're a very restrictive kind of Platonist that e.g. believes the mathematical objects called "natural numbers" fulfilling the Peano axioms "exist" in a stronger sense than any other sort of cooked up mathematical structure. It's the analog of "my god exists but your god doesn't exist"

>1-1+1-1+1... = 1/2.
>I don't understand analysis, the statement

1/x is not continuous

What I'm saying is that his argument proves that 1/x does not have a continuous extension to R, but doesn't say anything about discontinuous extensions. It's not clear why the "right" extension would have to be continuous. (I'm not saying that there's any sensible way of defining 1/0, just that his argument isn't complete.)

...

>lmoa
>4(0)=3(0)
>4=3
>proofed it, mathematicists
>come get me, yookaledes

take 1/0 to equal 0
if you times by 0, you get 1 = 0
which is impossible, therefore, you cant divide by 0

divide both sides by 0
>4(0)/0 = 3(0)/0
>4*0 = 3*0

And you're back where you started. The statement remains true (0 = 0).

I can't even read your handwriting but I'm talking specifically about 0/0 not 1/0

Yeah well lots of things in math are stupid like 1+2+3... =-1/12 so that isn't an argument

Anything divided by 0 is 0. We've known this since at least 668, but brainlets still refuse to accept it.

>you get 1=0

How so? 0/0 is 0?

0/0= 0*0^-1=1 per definition, and if you put it as one you get loads of other problems(just as with 0)

>0/0= 0*0^-1=1 per definition

a/a=1 is only true for nonzero a!

Ok, sorry let me try using a different metaphor.

I own a shop that packs nails in boxes. At the end of each day all boxes in my warehouse have a equal number of nails. I send in my assistant to then count the nails.

One day I send him into my warehouse and there's a pile of nails on the floor, but no boxes anywhere, this is me dividing by zero. Now, what number can my assistant tell me for the number of nails inside my boxes? If you say zero, you're wrong, because then your statement is implying there is a box with no nails. My question is flawed because I'm implying there's a box, when in actuality there is no box. The fact I'm referencing something that doesn't exist is the cause of the undefined state, not what is on top. Doesn't matter if there is no nails on the shop floor, a thousand, a IOU note for fifty, the crux of the problem isn't the nails, it's the lack of a box.

[eqn]\frac{0}{0}=0[/eqn]
[eqn]\frac{1}{\frac{a}{b}}=\frac{b}{a}[/eqn]
[eqn]\frac{1}{0}=\frac{1}{\frac{0}{0}}=\frac{0}{0}=0[/eqn]