1÷0=1

>he value of the lowest possible score on a test is effectively one
I take this back.

The value of the lowest possible score on a test is x. It can be anything. It's totally arbitrary.

We choose 0 because it makes the most sense in our minds, but it's still arbitrary. We could just as easily consider 1 the lowest possible score, and there's literally no reason we couldn't.

i had the same thoughts tbqh but if you just see 1/x plot, you'll notice that the current math makes more sense.

google.com/search?q=1/x plot

(you)

>"One divided by zero" is just another way of saying "one divided by nothing."
In which wheel?

This is literally a Millennium Prize Problem, the navier-stokes equations. My idea is we'll handle arithemic with 0 the same way we've come across Imaginary Numbers in the distant future.

>more of a concept than a number
??????????????
How the fuck are numbers ever not concepts?

>How the fuck are numbers ever not concepts?
Physical objects, whether they be alone or in groups, have empirical oneness, twoness, threeness, etc.

These are things that exist in the real world and are more than just concepts.

Zero is purely conceptual.

>have empirical oneness, twoness, threeness
No.

>OP's descent into madness, the thread
Your word salad isn't based on anything other than your tenuous grasp on reality. You thought you could play with semantics and sound smart, but really you're just a schizoid retard, kys

Reality agrees with me.

I have five fingers. This is not a concept. I actually have five fingers.

> (OP)
>1*0=1
>1 multiplied by nothing is just 1
>Prove me wrong
Wrong. It is quantity. There are 0 ones, or 1 zero, both of which equal nothing

>Reality agrees with me.
>I have five fingers. This is not a concept. I actually have five fingers.
What happened to the others?

>I have five fingers. This is not a concept. I actually have five fingers.
Correction: I actually have ten fingers, but I'm referring to just one hand.

All numbers are abstraction. Numbers don't exist as physical objects, they "exist" as ideas that abstract out common details about otherwise different sorts of physical objects into one unified imaginary object that's more convenient to work with, so you can deal with 5 for example when thinking about working days in a week, or fingers on a hand, or dollars spent on a sandwich.
You can't manipulate 5 in any real /physical way though. It exists only as an idea, not as a material object.

Wrong.
Your hand isn't a concept. The number 5 you're using to describe your hand absolutely is a concept.

"Five" is just an adjective. It's a physical description of a specific and real property of my hand.

Would you then say that all adjectives and descriptions are also just concepts? Because that would be very silly, but at least it would be consistent.

You're confusing two different meaning of the word "nothing".
You're not allow to divide by zero because it leads to nonsensical results like "2 = 1"

Prove a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.

1. "A ham sandwich is better than nothing"
2. "Nothing is better than eternal happiness"
3. "If A > B and B > C then A > C"

INDIVIDUALLY you probably agree with all 3 statements, but you might dispute the conclusion of the syllogism.
The logic is impeccable -- except "nothing" means different things in different statements.

I like this argument. I see my error now. Thank you.

0 is not nothing.

Of course all descriptions are concepts. You can't do anything physical to a description. They're imaginary conveniences, not real world objects.

Again, very silly logic, but at least you're consistent.

An object is independant of the qualities we use to describe it.

It's probably one of the most fundamental and least "silly" distinctions you can make.
There's a big difference between an actual object vs. an abstraction about an object.
If you don't have that distinction then software is the same as hardware.

Wise user. Being smart is admitting when you're mistaken... (instead of replying with your ego : no u")

>"A ham sandwich is better than nothing
They’re the worst?

>1÷0=1

maybe you brainlets will like what I just wrote in the triangle shitpost thread

You might be confusing zero for one. Using your pedestrian sort of reasoning, this is what division actually is:

"One divided by x" is the "size" of each piece of one when you "divide" it into x pieces.

"One divided by 1" is the "size" each piece of one when you "divide" it into 1 piece - or "do nothing to it".

"One divided by 0" is the "size" of each piece of one when you "divide" it into 0 pieces. Since there are zero pieces, they can be of any size you want. It's undefined.

No you don't understand, multiplying by 0 is multiplying by nothing, so nothing happens.

There's a huge flaw in your argument. 0 isn't "nothing". 0 is the neutral element. And dividing by the neutral element is simply undefined.

Nigger, this is the most high-school tier shit I've read all day. And I'm a fucking teacher.
I don't have time to explain all the different reasons you're retarded.

Correct. Veeky Forums just can't handle it.

You're not a teacher. Nobody cares who you are.

My logic was absolutely perfect and flawless.

if you have a bunch of apples then you have some number of apples, which means numbers are concrete
but you never have "zero apples", because zero is abstract, and abstractness only exists in the mind and no apples exists in your mind, only symbols of apples, but in reality you may have apples or no apples at all, which is to say "you have x apples" is a nonsense statement, x is not 0 if you have zero apples, x doesn't even exist at all

Division works more like this:
4/2=2
>four split into groups of two results in two groups
24/8=3
>twetny-four split into groups of eight results in three groups
57/1=57
>fifty-seven split into groups of one results in fifty-seven groups

Now that you are clear on the definition, lets try zero.
3/0=?
>three split into groups of nothing results in... nothing? infinity? both?
Doesnt work. No defined value, aka “undefined”.

If you don't like ham, here's a similar argument

1. Any cat has one more tail than no cat.
2. No cat has eight tails.
3. Therefore, any cat has nine tails.

Please don't quibble about Manx cats.
And did you mean to write "They're the wurst"?

...

>if you have a bunch of apples then you have some number of apples, which means numbers are concrete
No.
There's nothing "concrete" about the concept of a number. There isn't some magical floating "12" that you can look at under a microscope because there's a dozen apples in your shopping bag. "12" is an imaginary concept used to identify and behave around the notion there's something in common between those apples, the time of day "noon," the length in inches of a "footlong" sandwich, etc.
It's mostly derived from the concept of repetition, the ***IDEA*** (NOT PHYSICAL OBJECT) that certain objects can be considered multiple instances of some more general class of objects.
So first you need to have a concept of some given "apple" being an instance of the general class of "apples," and then you need to have a concept of other "apples" also belonging to that class to where you can treat all of these "apples" as interchangeable (at least in as far as their identity as "apples" is concerned).
Then, finally you can begin to apply the concept of number based on how many repititions of "apple" are there.
This is all extremely abstract, there's nothing "concrete" or tangible about the concept of number you apply to objects when thinking about them or working with them. If you don't get this you don't get anything about abstraction.

I claim no originality.
A good, clear explanation deserves repetition.
Was very sad to learn Smullyan died a few months ago.

If you can't tell the difference between one apple and ten apples, you're in trouble buddy.

I was similarly saddened. He and Persi Diaconis bring such joy to math.

Being able to tell a difference between two sets of physical objects using the abstraction of numbers isn't the same thing as numbers magically existing as physical objects you retard.

Would anyone mistake 12 for 11. The concept seems concrete.

Anything multiplied by nothing has no operation preformed on it.
1*1 = 1
1*0 = 1
5*1 = 5
5*0 = 5
N*1 = N
N*0 = N

Therefore 0 = 1.

"Concrete" has nothing to do with salience.
Read a book you absolute brainlet. Numbers are the first example for abstractions almost any write-up on "abstract" vs. "concrete" will cite.

You needn’t be mad at people less smart than you and perhaps I didn’t understand the exact difference.

Yes, it is.

zero equals and is everything in the spiritual universe and scientific matrix

God, all of these examples suck.

Did a brainlet write this up?

Numbers are concrete, faggot. Get over it.

>Numbers are concrete
Numbers are one of the most basic examples of abstraction there is. You're retarded and making up your own retard definition for "concrete" that doesn't have any meaning.
Because you can look at the number 5 under a microscope or put it in a suitcase and bring it to work with you, right? Fuck off you idiot.

>Numbers are one of the most basic examples of abstraction there is. You're retarded and making up your own retard definition for "concrete" that doesn't have any meaning.
It's actually pretty simple and fundamental reasoning that I'm using, brainlet.

Two is greater than one. This is true conceptually AND in the physical universe.

I have no idea how to dumb it down further than you.

>Because you can look at the number 5 under a microscope or put it in a suitcase and bring it to work with you, right?
Yes, you can.

If you see five microbes under a microscope, you have just seen the number five.

If you have five things in your suitcase, you are carrying a five with you.

Not that complicated.

>I have no idea how to dumb it down further than you.
*further FOR you

Though you're also dumbing it down to a greater extent than I considered possible, to a point where you don't even think such a basic thing is even true.

>If you see five microbes under a microscope, you have just seen the number five.
>If you have five things in your suitcase, you are carrying a five with you.
No, holy fuck, just stop, I can't believe the level of retardation you're hitting on right now. You have no idea what an abstraction is, nobody else uses your "definition."
The entire point of numbers is to give us a convenient way to abstract out an imaginary object that stands in for an apparent shared quality in real world objects so we can deal with the imaginary object as a shortcut.
So instead of being limited to only working directly with physical objects as is like lower level animals, we can deal with the pure idea of the number 5 for example and manipulate it independent of all the other details a physical object might have.
The number 5 isn't a physical object just because a set of physical objects you abstracted the idea of 5 in reference to are themselves physical objects. The number you infer from those objects is an idea, not a thing.
>Two is greater than one.
Being true doesn't make an abstraction not abstract. Why would you make up such a retarded idea like that? What made you think that made any sense?

>What made you think that made any sense?
Because it does, and you're fucking retarded for not being able to see it.>You have no idea what an abstraction is, nobody else uses your "definition."
Then I guess everyone else is a retard.

>The entire point of numbers is to give us a convenient way to abstract out an imaginary object that stands in for an apparent shared quality in real world objects so we can deal with the imaginary object as a shortcut.
My idea does not contradict this.
>So instead of being limited to only working directly with physical objects as is like lower level animals, we can deal with the pure idea of the number 5 for example and manipulate it independent of all the other details a physical object might have.
This does not mean numbers aren't concrete.
>The number 5 isn't a physical object just because a set of physical objects you abstracted the idea of 5 in reference to are themselves physical objects. The number you infer from those objects is an idea, not a thing.
You have given me zero reason to believe this.

Zero is the only number that is purely an idea.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/
>There is a great deal of agreement about how to classify certain paradigm cases. Thus it is universally acknowledged that numbers and the other objects of pure mathematics are abstract (if they exist), whereas rocks and trees and human beings are concrete.
>It is universally acknowledged that numbers and the other objects of pure mathematics are abstract
You're literally so stupid that the writers of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy didn't anticipate anyone like you who would be misguided enough to fail to acknowledge numbers are abstract.
>Then I guess everyone else is a retard.
No, everyone else acknowledges numbers are abstract and not concrete.

>No, everyone else acknowledges numbers are abstract and not concrete.
Thereby, everyone else is wrong.

>You have given me zero reason to believe this.
A physical object has a location.
The number 5 has no location.
A physical object can be physically manipulated.
You cannot physically manipulate the number 5.
You're conflating objects the number 5 is being used to describe with the number 5 itself. It's like you're saying "green," "loud," or "fast" are physical objects just because trees, thunder, and racecars exist.

0 goes into 1 infinite times. wow, that was hard.

>The number 5 has no location.
I have five fingers on my two hands. They're right here. I'm looking right at them.

>You cannot physically manipulate the number 5.
I could cut my fingers off.

>It's like you're saying "green," "loud," or "fast" are physical objects just because trees, thunder, and racecars exist.
But this is all true, too.

>I have five fingers on my two hands.
>I'm looking right at them.
You're looking at your hands, not at the number 5. Your hands are the concrete object, the number 5 is the abstraction.
>I could cut my fingers off.
That would alter you hand, not the number 5. It's not like by cutting your fingers off you'll have changed what the number 5 itself is. The number 5 is still the number 5 regardless of if your hand still has 5 fingers or not.

>You're looking at your hands, not at the number 5. Your hands are the concrete object, the number 5 is the abstraction.
Merely contradicting me is not going to help me understand your pedestrian point of view.
>That would alter you hand, not the number 5. It's not like by cutting your fingers off you'll have changed what the number 5 itself is. The number 5 is still the number 5 regardless of if your hand still has 5 fingers or not.
True, if I cut off my finger, there would still indeed be five fingers. One of them is merely dismembered.

How does this prove that numbers are abstract again?

What you're failing to grasp is that numbers take infinitely many forms.

>True, if I cut off my finger, there would still indeed be five fingers. One of them is merely dismembered.
No, now you're intentionally pretending not to see the point because you realize how obviously wrong it makes you.
But to address your latest new layer of bullshit, let's say instead of "merely dismembered," one of your fingers is broken down and incinerated, so that no one would still call the remaining ash a "finger."
By your completely retarded "logic," the value of a nickle is now 4 cents because your hand went from having 5 fingers to having 4 fingers.
Or, here's a crazy thought: The number 5 is an abstraction and nothing about it changes just because you change a particular object that had been described by that number 5 but no longer is described by it following your change.

>By your completely retarded "logic," the value of a nickle is now 4 cents because your hand went from having 5 fingers to having 4 fingers.
The value of a nickle is 0, objectively.

We as a society have subjectively agreed that the value of a nickel is 5, but that's arbitrary.

That's an irrelevant nitpick. You can easily change the example to something that isn't set as a social convention and the same argument remains e.g. :
By your completely retarded "logic," the atomic number of the element Boron is now 4 because your hand went from having 5 fingers to having 4 fingers.
Anyway it's clear now you recognize numbers aren't concrete, you're not even trying to make coherent arguments.

>The real numbers are a field.
>in a field everything except zero is a unit
>a unit can not be a zero divisor
/thread

2/10 bait, sit down and apologize to the class

The absolute state of sci

For any nonzero numerator, what number do you have to multiply with the denominator (which is zero) in order to get the numerator?

That's right. Can't be done.

>I don't understand how multiplication works

Zero is a number, not nothing.

Wrong. "1 ÷ 0 =" is saying "One is divisible by zero this many times".

>infinity
No such thing.

>The real numbers are a field.
>fields without identity

0 isn't nothing you fag, nothing is nothing.

5*0=5

"Five multiplied by zero" is just another way of saying "five multiplied by nothing".

"Five multiplied by nothing" is just another way of saying "five is not being multiplied by anything".

"Five is not being multiplied by anything" is just another way of saying "five is not being multiplied".

If five is not being multiplied, then no operation is being performed on it. Therefore, it remains the same by the reflexive property of equality.

Prove me wrong.

2+1=21!

This is probably a joke, but this is actually the case in some non-standard models of ZF.

When you divide by zero, you are dividing into parts of zero, not by nothing

x/0 = infinity

what the fuck is a number

>"One divided by nothing" is just another way of saying "one is not being divided by anything."
No. You're saying it's being divided by zero.

Dividing by 1 would be closer to "not being divided by anything", but it's still false. It's being divided by 1.

Look at the other posts in this thread, he literally believes numbers (except zero) are "concrete objects" and not concepts. As in he insisted you could see and physically alter the number 5.

>implying fingers "exist" and aren't just concepts

That's a good point too, although it was hard enough just trying to get him to understand numbers are concepts let alone get him to grok mereological nihilism.

>infinity
No such thing.

>cut off one finger
>remove the concrete number 5 from the universe
>from now on things will be described in groups of 4+1

(x + 1) = x

I've had enough of fucking five for the day

>As in he insisted you could see and physically alter the number 5.
You could simply destroy the concept of the number "5".

>destroy the concept of the number "5"

What is this post trying to communicate?