Dividing by zero

[kamil]

suppose each of these bars has 3 cm length -----------

 

if we know that the length of the whole bars is 33cm then we can bassically work out how many bars there are through the equaiton:

 

lenght of the whole bars/length of one bar=number of bars

33cm/3cm=11

 

We know that any line has an infinite amount of points, and we know that each point has length zero. Applying the above formula in this situation gives:

 

33cm/0=inf

 

:shrug:

 

This concludes that infinity is inversely proportianol to 0, regardless of what the numerator is. just an idea:shrug: :cup:

[T0M]

... infinity is inversely proportianol to 0, regardless of what the numerator is. just an idea.

Infinity is inversely proportional to 1/∞, which is not 0 (which would be rounding).

 

T0M

[kamil]

Infinity is inversely proportional to 1/∞, which is not 0 (which would be rounding).

 

T0M

 

Are you saying that saying that a point has lenght 0 is just rounding off?? :shrug:

[T0M]

Are you saying that saying that a point has lenght 0 is just rounding off?? :)

That's right!

[my brain hurts]

deleted

[my brain hurts]

suppose each of these bars has 3 cm length -----------

 

if we know that the length of the whole bars is 33cm then we can bassically work out how many bars there are through the equaiton:

 

lenght of the whole bars/length of one bar=number of bars

33cm/3cm=11

 

We know that any line has an infinite amount of points, and we know that each point has length zero. Applying the above formula in this situation gives:

 

33cm/0=inf

 

:)

 

This concludes that infinity is inversely proportianol to 0, regardless of what the numerator is. just an idea:shrug: :)

 

Your use of the word "concludes" leaves much to be desired. If, as you maintain, 33/0=inf, then by your reasoning 0*inf=33. Care to rethink that?

[kamil]

Your use of the word "concludes" leaves much to be desired. If, as you maintain, 33/0=inf, then by your reasoning 0*inf=33. Care to rethink that?

 

Well where do you think I made the mistake with my reasoning. Do you agree with T0M that a point doesnt have a length of zero?

 

 

 

I still dont understand how a point does not have length of zero.

[my brain hurts]

Euclid begins his Elements with a lovely line: a point is that which hath no part.

 

The trouble is, mathematical operations involving zero or infinity do not behave as they do with other numbers. That's why they have driven people nuts for centuries. Consider this- what portion of the number line do rational numbers take up? Surprisingly, they don't take up any space at all. If you were to throw a sufficiently pointy dart at the number line, the odds that you would hit a rational number are zero, even though there are an infinite number of them.

 

The incommensurability of the irrationals is such an astonishing fact that measures (some involving death) were taken to hide its discovery.

 

For more on the unique properties of zero, pick up Charles Seife's Zero: the biography of a dangerous idea. Good reading.

 

A decent article about infinities and the hierarchy of transfinite numbers can be found here-

http://www.ii.com/math/ch/#terms

 

Have fun!

[T0M]

If you were to throw a sufficiently pointy dart at the number line, the odds that you would hit a rational number are zero, even though there are an infinite number of them.

If the odds of hitting a rational number are zero, then the odds of hitting ANY number are zero. Meaning you haven't thrown your dart at them.

 

Care to rethink that?

 

T0M

 

P.S.: If a point "has a lenght of zero" it is not a point. Unless you're rounding (or using "limits").

[Erasmus00]

If the odds of hitting a rational number are zero, then the odds of hitting ANY number are zero. Meaning you haven't thrown your dart at them.

 

Total fallacy. The odds of hitting one specific number are 0, the odds of hitting some number is simply 1 (assuming you can't miss the number line). Consider if you have N boxes, and you are selecting one of them. The probability of selecting 1 specific box is 1/N. The odds of hitting ANY box is 1. As N gets large, the odds of hitting any box stays the same. The odds of hitting 1 specific box heads rapidly to 0 like 1/N.

-Will

[my brain hurts]

If the odds of hitting a rational number are zero, then the odds of hitting ANY number are zero. Meaning you haven't thrown your dart at them.

 

Care to rethink that?

 

T0M

 

P.S.: If a point "has a lenght of zero" it is not a point. Unless you're rounding (or using "limits").

 

My normal inclination would be to rip you a new one, but I liked your post on who was god so much, I'll give you a pass. Besides, you're the guy that thinks there's a whopping one infinity.:)

[kamil]

Your use of the word "concludes" leaves much to be desired. If, as you maintain, 33/0=inf, then by your reasoning 0*inf=33. Care to rethink that?

 

33*0=0

33=0/0

 

inf=33/0

 

0*inf=33

0*33/0=33

0/0=33

[kamil]

If a point "has a lenght of zero" it is not a point.

:)

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/defI1.html

 

"The description of a point, "that which has no part," indicates that Euclid will be treating a point as having no width, length, or breadth, but as an indivisible location"

[my brain hurts]

33*0=0

33=0/0

 

inf=33/0

 

0*inf=33

0*33/0=33

0/0=33

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't know if you're trying to be smarmy, or if you are really mathematically illiterate.

 

Let's examine a bit of what you just stated-

0*33/0=33 The associative law allows this to be rewritten as-

33*0/0=33 But wait! Isn't 0/0=33??? Substituting,

33*33=33 As Lucy used to say to Ricky: "start 'splaining!"

 

Try another one-

Wouldn't 32=0/0 by your same logic? If so,

32=0/0

33=0/0 therefore

32=33 or, more generally, any number equals any other number.

 

The point is simply that you cannot perform these basic arithmetic operations inserting zero or infinity willy-nilly.

[kamil]

 

The point is simply that you cannot perform these basic arithmetic operations inserting zero or infinity willy-nilly.

 

Then if you cant perform these arithmetic operations then why did u did it yourself?:

 

33/0=inf

33=inf*0

 

Thats why I worte my previous post, because I too recognized that you cannot perform these operations but when you did so, I then used your logic.

[Qfwfq]

Cool it boys.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't know if you're trying to be smarmy, or if you are really mathematically illiterate.

I don't know how he was supposed to take that MBH but I faded it out because it ain't the kind of remark people like to see around here. Please try to avoid.

 

If you think anyone here is mathematically illiterate, try giving this one a thought:

 

a) 0/0 = 33

 

:) 0*0 = 0

 

so, what's the sqare of 0/0? Is it (0*0)/(0*0) or is it (0/0)*(0/0)? What do you make of that? I think you are both missing a rather fundamental point, which could have been stated without any wise cracks.

[my brain hurts]

Then if you cant perform these arithmetic operations then why did u did it yourself?:

 

33/0=inf

33=inf*0

 

Thats why I worte my previous post, because I too recognized that you cannot perform these operations but when you did so, I then used your logic.

 

I'm not the one offering up these preposterous ideas. I'm just trying to show you the ridiculous consequences of your "theory".