Proof that 1=2

x-x = 0
you can't divide by zero.
Come on mate this is like year 9 school maths for fucks sake.

holy fucking brainlet

But why is division by zero against the rules? Who decided that? Please don't bully me, I'm just a humble medfag.

>Who decided that?
Albert Einstein

Because deviding something by nothing is illogical
Any number multiplied by 0 euqals to 0, idiot. Rather say:
1*1=1*2
1=2 |-2
3=0
Ergo: Makes no fucking sense

Line three to four is invalid

But WHY is it illogical? Who decided that?

Because 1/0 doesn't make any sense. It's undefined because otherwise a bunch of contradictions will follow.

But WHY doesn't it make sense? Who decided that?

ffs...Take a cherry and devide it by nothing, what do you get? It's not a whole cherry as that would mean you simply divided it by 1. The mathematical nothing is something different than the "normal" one. I think a simple google research might give you a pleasent answer as well ;) p.s.: Nice thicc ass

the rules of division which work and are useful for all other numbers, except with 0 as divisor
also post more anime butts

>But WHY doesn't it make sense? Who decided that?
Nobody "decided it". The expression is objectively nonsense. But you're obviously a fuckin brainlet so I'll give you ANOTHER specific example.
0=(3*0)=(4*0)=0
3*0=4*0
(3*0)/0=(4*0)/0
3=4
???
Ergo anything/0 doesn't make sense. It is is undefined. The value shots off to pos infinity if you look at a graph of it but you can't represent that with a real number, can you? Division by zero is strictly not allowed because it leads to BULLSHIT. 0/0 can make sense in a way but ONLY in limiting processes and even then, it can result in different values.

I'd like to add that the function f(x)=1/x is DISCONTINUOUS at x=0 and correct my statement in that it shoots off to pos infinity from pos x, and to neg infinity from neg x, which only furthers the evidence that a number/0 shouldn't be allowed in algebra.

Today OP learned he may encounter contradictions when he divides by 0.

or we could just say that division by 0 = complex infinity and be done with it

Ok, let's think like this:
>1 / 1 = 1
>1 / 0.5 = 2
>1 / 0.25 = 4
>keep trying to get to 0 in the denominator and evaluate the fraction
As you see, as you make the denominator small, the fraction tends to get larger and larger. So, this won't converge to a number, like if I divide 1/1 = 1.
That's why it doesn't make sense to divide by zero.

how the hell do you go from this
>x2-x2=x2-x2
to this
>x*(x-x)=(x-x)*(x+x)
you can't just make up math you need to show your steps

>complex infinity
Except that's not a thing that exists

>infinite isn't a number

...

Division by 0 is always 0. Western mathematicians have been lying to you to support their ring theory propaganda.

no inverese to 0 in complex field and all subfields

It can be any number. I meant that he won't find a unique number that represents that fraction.

yes it is. just multiply infinity by some re^(iθ) and you're good

u have 10 apples

if u divide by 2 you get 5
if u divide by 1 you get 10
if u divide by .5 you get 20
if you divide by .25 you get 40
if you divide by .0000001 you get 100 million
for 10/x the limit as x tends to 0 is infinity
but if you divide by 0 u get 0? u are a brainlet, division by zero is meaningless just like taking the derivative of a corner

Why doesn't it make sense? Perhaps check the proof posted by OP? That's why it was rejected. But check out wheel theory if you really care that much.

>division by zero the thread
why do we keep having this thread.
isnt there a better use of our time?

So 1/0 is complex infinity. Great. So is 2/0. So is 3/0. So
complex infinity = 1/0 = 2/0 = 3/0 = 4/0 and so on. So what do I get if I multiply complex infinity by 0?
>You get 1. 0/1 is the reciprocal of 1/0 which is complex infinity, and if you multiply anything by its reciprocal you get 1.
Alright, so 1/0 × 0/1 = (1 × 0)/(0 × 1) = 0/0 = 1. So if I multiply 5 by 0/0, the product will be 5, since 5 × 0/0 = 5 × 1 = 5. But 5 × 0/0 = 5/1 × 0/0 = (5 × 0)/(1 × 0) = 0/0 = 1. So 5 is 1 now? All numbers are 1?
>Alright, then. 1/0 × 0 is 0 because any number multiplied by 0 is 0.
OK, so 0/0 = 0. But then dividing by 0 is multiplying by 0/0, since 0/0 is 0 and dividing by something is multiplying by its reciprocal, and the reciprocal of 0/0 is 0/0. So 1/0 = 1 × (0/0) = 0.
>Fine, let's find it algebraically. 0/0 = x, solve for x.
So multiply both sides by 0 to get 0 = 0x, and then? What is x? 0 = 0x literally holds up for any number x you can think of.
>Fine! Just leave 0/0 undefined.
Sure, whatever. So what is complex infinity divided by complex infinity? That's (1/0)/(1/0) = (1/0) × (0/1) = (1 × 0)/(0 × 1) = 0/0.
>Leave that undefined too.
Alright, so what is complex infinity divided by 0? (1/0)/(0/1) = (1/0) × (0/1) = (1/1) × (0/0) = 0/0.
>Leave that undefined too.
So, let's go back to the basis of this stupid system. So complex infinity = 1/0 = 2/0 = 3/0? So 1/0 - 2/0 = complex infinity - complex infinity = 0. But 1/0 - 2/0 = (1-2)/0 = -complex infinity. So 0 is -complex infinity? Then complex infinity = 0. What a fucking retarded idea this all was.

You are being trolled hard bro

Don't think of it as "division" but rather multiplying by the multiplicative inverse. The multiplicative inverse of a number is what you multiply it by in order to get the identity (in this case 1). There is no number x such that 0x=1. Therefore 0 has no inverse. Therefore "division" in this context makes no sense.

You should realize that multiplication and division doesn't really exist, it's just a short form of adding and subtracting. 5*4 is actually just short for 5+5+5+5. And 20/2 is actually just short for the question how often can I subtract 2 from 20 until nothing is left? The anser to that question is 10. Now try 20/0. The question is how often can i subtract 0 from 20 until nothing is left? And this question has no answer. Even if you subtracted 0 from 20 infinite times, you will still have 20. So this question has no solution. This is why you cant divide with zero, because it doesn't give an answer.

I rationalized not dividing by zero using this method when I was in fifth grade. I've moved on since then.

>x*0=0*2x
>x=2x

-1 faggot

how do you figure?

1-2=-1

>x*(x-x)=(x-x)*(x+x)
>x = (x+x)
So, what field are we working in? And what is the inverse of (x-x) = 0? I am suuuper confused.

Okay, mister man. Try sqrt(2) * pi. Tell me the addition expansion for that.

x^2 - x^2 factors as
x (x - x) and
(x-x)(x+x) by foil

But x-x = 0 so he still divides by 0.

Division is the inverse of multiplication. In other words, when we divide we are actually multiplying by the inverse of the divisor. That said, an inverse is an element in a field such that when you multiply an element by it's inverse you obtain the identity element in the field. The identity for multiplication is the number 1. The way multiplication is defined makes it so that 0 has no inverse. Hence, you can't divide by 0, i.e. multiply by the inverse of 0.
As for who decided this: I haven't the slightest idea. Maybe Euler, or some old Greek fart.

/lim_x /to /infty

Doesn't this mean that metaphysics/the laws of logic should 'ground' math? Nothing prevents us from inventing new mathematical word games except if they violate the principle of non-contradiction.

And I'm aware of the Godel results, but Hintikka seems to think that we can salvage the logicist programme by adding some additional notation/qualifiers to our logic

Conceptualize the diagonal line (call it D) which perfectly bisects a square of side 1. Now conceptualize two clones of D; connect them to the original. Next, conceptualize a line C which, if you added it to itself ten times, would have the length of D. Connect C to D. Next, conceptualize a line B which, if you added it to itself ten times, would have the length of D added to itself four times; connect B to D. Next, conceptualize a line...