People say that division by zero is not defined. Well, now I define it.
Let [math]G[/math] be a thing we'll call a [math]\textit{surreal number}[/math].
We define: [math]x / 0 = xG[/math] for all [math]x \neq 0[/math].
Now for example [math]3 / 0 + 5 / 0 = 8G[/math] and [math](8 / 0) / (2 / 0) = 4G[/math].
So we can use these surreal numbers to sweep under the rug all the contradictions that division by zero would normally cause.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Actually that second example should be [math]= 4[/math] and not [math]= 4G[/math]. My bad.
>People say that division by zero is not defined.
en.wikipedia.org
(1/0)*(1/0) = G*G = G^2
It looks like you haven't properly defined G's arithmetic. What is G squared?
Surreal numbers are already a thing.
en.wikipedia.org
Think up another name for your nonsense.
G squared is just G squared. It doesn't have a value that is comparable with real numbers. The best case scenario is when you can divide Gs by Gs to achieve a real number.
I don't care; these are surreal numbers if I say so.
[math]\frac{1}{0}/\frac{1}{0}=\frac{1G}{1G}=1[/math]
We also have
[math]\frac{1}{0}/\frac{1}{0}=\frac{1}{0}\times\frac{0}{1}=\frac{0}{0}=0G=0[/math]
[math]\implies 1=0[/math]
Contradiction
>0/0 = 0G
Wrong. Look at the definition again in OP. Even in this system 0/0 is still not defined.
1+1G=?
Like I said in earlier post, surreal numbers and real numbers are not comparable in general. [math]1 + G[/math] is just [math]1 + G[/math], or alternatively [math]1 + \frac{1}{0}[/math].
Good luck getting published while giving something a name that already applies to another concept.
You think I'd make a thread on Veeky Forums about something that I'm going to publish? Besides, this thing is so simple that someone has surely invented this before me.
1+1i=?
2/0 * 1/0 = 2G * G = 2GG
2/0 * 1/0 = 2/0 = 2G
=> 2GG = 2G
=> G = 1
1/0 = 1G = 1 * 1 = 1
=> 1 = 1 * 0
=> 1 = 0
>2/0 * 1/0 = 2/0
That is not defined. Not by me, and not by mathematicians in general.
1/0=G is not defined. Not by me, and not by mathematicians in general.
1/0 = G
1/0 * 0 = G * 0
1 = 0
This really makes me think
I'll take your bait.
>1 = 1
>1 * 0 = 0
>1 = 0
That isn't even the same thing
[math]1 \cdot x \neq 0 \cdot x[/math] unless [math]x = 0[/math]
That is literally elementary school math. Now, please don't derail this thread further.
G/0 = GG
=> 0/G = 1/(GG)
=> 0 = 1/G
=> 0 * G = 1
=> 0 = 1
I did not even use that in my post
Are you autistic?
what he meant was, if you define divison by zero, by making G=1/0 a legal expression, that must mean that G*0 should be one as per multiplication of divisor. however, if not G*0 = 0, 0 is not the absorption element anymore.
i don't agree with it, but i think it's what he means. and you should be able to make a rebuttal.
You said
>1/0 = G
which is true; and
>1/0 * 0 = G * 0
which is true.
But [math]1 / 0 \neq 1/0 \cdot 0[/math]. So your conclusion 1 = 0 is rubbish.
[math]\frac{1}{G}=\frac{0}{1}=0=\frac{0}{2}=\frac{1}{2G}[/math]
[math]\implies \frac{1}{G}=\frac{1}{2G}[/math]
[math]\implies G=2G[/math]
[math]\implies 1=2[/math]
1/G =/= 0/1
Oh I see. Making up rules on the go to protect that abomination of a concept that
is G.
But 1/0*0/1 can still be written G*0, no?
I said 1/0*0 = 1
and G*0 = 0 because that 0's property
It just so happens that G is also 1/0
1/0 gives different results when multiplied, depending on how it is written?
Yeah, which means that you have to choose what should be the value of G*0
This is the direct contradiction everyone is looking for. In particular, it refutes :
>The best case scenario is when you can divide Gs by Gs to achieve a real number.
> 0 * G = 1
> 0 * 1/0 = 1
which is not invalid
Don't you ever talk to me or my derivative again.
I like this one.
>finding the derivative from first principles
how's high school going?
using the limit definition is the whole fucking point of that post you retard
What the fuck are you talking about?
Sure I could just solve a simple derivative like that the easy way, but that completely averts the issue of dividing by zero. That or you expect me to use autism notation like in the Principia,
let G*0 = H
>People say that division by zero is not defined.
Division by zero is just as well-defined as division
by any other number; the problem is that it cannot
be performed, therefore the result is "indeterminate".