**Warning**: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in

**/var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php**on line

**1043**

**Warning**: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in

**/var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php**on line

**1043**

**Warning**: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in

**/var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php**on line

**1043**

why does Big Math not want to admit that this is the correct answer?

the function [math] f(x) = frac{1}{x}[/math] is not continuous at 0

sure it is, at ±∞

What's your point?

Not all functions have to be continuous.

because that would mean infinity * 0 = 1

0/0 = 1

correct

1 != 0

Q.E.D.

>1 != 0

No one said that

But isn't 0! = 1?

crazy how 0 != 1

but also 0! = 1

>?

0^0 = 1

when they are going to fix this broken system?

That makes sense though

So you think this makes sense?

0*infinity =1

0*1 = 0

Therefore:

0*(0*infinity) = 0

Yeah, and this is true.

In the beginning we had the Pleroma, all possibilities. It was like a wave of infinite amplitude and infinite frequency. The peaks and troughs canceled out, making silence, but a pregnant silence.

The infinite, when undivided (divided into zero parts) = 1. ∞/0 = 1. A single thing.

However, being can not be if it is all one thing, since it is totally undefined, the same as being nothing. 1/ ∞ = 0.

From ∞/0 we get 1. From 1/∞ we get 1 =0. From this contradiction we get the dialectical, sublation of nothing by being. This is what produces our world of becoming, where what is constantly passes into the non-being of what has been.

This is the basis of A ≠ A. The Absolute is its own process of coming into being through the dialectical. Logos, Spirt, and Object.

1/Infinity = 0?

why not?

Infinity is not defined on the number line

>let there exist a number h s.t 1/h = 0

>h not in N

>sup(N) = h

correct

Because then: 2/Infinity = 0

and therefore: Infinity/Infinity = 0

Exactly. The infinite described in infinite ways is unfathomable. But the unfathomable is for all purposes the same as the non-existent.

From this contradiction we get our world of discrete phenomena within continuous fields. Again, the dialectical at work. The continuous sublates the finite.

This explains both of our world of becoming and our continuous world of finite quanta.

Zero isn't real. Negative numbers aren't real. Irregular sided shapes aren't real. Only platonic solids exist as shapes.

Stop mistaking the broken instantiations of the forms for the forms themselves. Reject formalism, embrace Platonism.

sorry for bad English

it literally is true, if you had a cylinder with height 1m you could stack infinitely many cylinders with the height of 0 m and you couldn't fill the 1m cylinder

you can stack infinite 0m cylinders forever and never make a cylinder of non-zero height it is very logical

the big math is ignirant

and if you were to divide the 1m cylinder to the nuber of 0m cylinders stacked on top of each other you will get infinity

Infinity is relative or subjective

Because it's

>useless

>awkward

Infinity is more complicated than a single number. For instance different functions approach infinite at different rates.

irrelevant

irrelevant

It is relevant, because it's useless even on the level of mathematics. It's a naive and hopeless conception of infinity.

0 and infinity are not real.

In projective space it is.

this is unironically true, just not under the real number system

zero isn't 0.001

infinity is not a number (in-finite-y)

how can a number divided by another number equal not a number?

>how can a number divided by another number equal not a number?

ok then explain [math] sqrt{-1}=i [/math]

>1/0 does not have a simple answer like a number

>Infinity is not a simple number

What's the problem with saying 1/0 is infinity?

You already discount Infinity from basic math

1 + inf = inf

1 = 0

It fucks everything up

1/0 = infinity -> 1 = infinity * 0

2 * 1/0 = 2 * infinity -> 2 = infinity * 0

1 = 2

If I have a water bottle of 1 l, and I fill it with a speed of X l/s, how many seconds will it take?

2 l/s => 0.5s

1 l/s => 1s

0.5 l/s => 2s

If I have a water bottle of 1l, and put it beneath a tap, turn the water off, and wait an infinite amount of time, how much water does it have?

so you're saying that 1 divided by 0 is 1?

retard

BeeP

Have product, divide it no times, still have product

1/-0.1=-10

1/-0.01=-100

1/-0.001=-1000

1/-0.0001=-10000

1/0=-infinity

why cant negative zero exist?

1/0 * 0 = Infinity * 0

1 = Infinity * 0

[math] frac{1}/{x} [/math] isn't continuous at 0.

From the Left: [math] lim _{x to - }frac{1}/{x}= -infty [/math]

From the Right: [math] lim _{x to + }frac{1}/{x}= infty [/math]

Now transfer the coordinate system onto a sphere.

:^)

ok now try it with negatives 🙂

1/x is by definition the multiplicative inverse of x, the number such that x * 1/x = 1.

So 1/0 would need the property that 0 * 1/0 = 1.

But 0 has the property that 0 * x = 0.

So 0 * 1/0 = 0.

So you can't have the following 3 assumptions/definitions at once:

- 1/x denotes the multiplicative inverse of x

- 0 * x = 0

- 0 has a multiplicative inverse

People usually get rid of the third one.

>So you can't have the following 3 assumptions/definitions at once:

what about the trivial ring?

>But 0 has the property that 0 * x = 0.

which is not actually based on anything, just completely made up for convenience

this is an unprocessed idea that im too lazy to actually think out into a proper post, this is my abortion of the idea, figure it out and call me out if im wrong

Lets put division into actual questions rather than just symbols

Each operation as a question

1/2 is the same as saying how many 2s do I need to get 1 in equal parts, the answer is 2 0.5s

Or, alternatively, what happens to a unit when split in two: it halves

Then, how many equal 0.1s do i need to get 1 = 10

If i need 0.1 of a unit (X) for another unit (Y), how much Y do i get from a X = 10 Y

as the number gets bigger an bigger, or smaller and smaller, the result will become proportional, 1/000001 = 1 million yes

but

1/0 in question form

How many 0s do I need for a 1 = this question does not make sense, it is an illogical question

If i need 0 of X for Y, how much Y do i get from a X = 0

as another question

what is the result of partitioning X by exactly 0 times

which would mean: dividing a number both by 1 and 0 will lead to the same number

Make of this unprocessed observations coming from a non-mathmatecian what you will

bro just restrict domain to [math](0,infty)[/math]

infinity is not a properly defined notion. Morever, the operation of division is not clearly defined for division by zero. Division by definition is the inverse operation of multiplication:

If x/0 = y, then x = 0*y = 0. If x is assumed non-zero, then we have a contradiction so the statement x/0 =y can only be considered meaningful if x=0. However 0/0 =y is true for any y. Hence the operation of division by zero is not well-defined.

The expression "1/0" is therefore nonsense.

Austist trying to gaslight other autist into thinking they’re incredibly smart and everyone else is just dumb the thread.

Welcome to the club

But I really am incredibly smart.

If you weren't so dumb, you would know that!

Maybe the problem lies entirely within you?

>can't find the square root of negative one >makes i

>can't divide by 0

>"ah shuckle fucks, guess I'll choke on a million dicks"

why are mathematicians like this LULZ

its infinity, they just want to pretend they dont know so they can continue getting government money for doing nothing

extend division to work with infinities without creating some dumb paradoxes that make the rest of maths become useless

it's trivial to do so, use your brain

[spoiler]the redpill is they end up indistinguishable from the infinitesimals used in calculus[spoiler]

a_fungus you absolute genius, I think about 1/0 a lot, so why I think about why didn't I think of that? I don't have the Mathematical know-how to develop such an idea right now, but I'm definitely going to!

It is not completely wrong, but it is a matter of notation.

In layman's terms, there are different "Inifinities". Fact of the matter there is an infinity of infinity.. but wait, doesn't that mean there is an infinity of infinities of infinities? Correct.

You can easily construct functions:

f(x) = x

g(x) = 1.5x

h(x) = 2x

.. and so on. When x grows, they all reach "Infinity". And yet for every x, h(x) > g(x) > f(x) is true. So which is the "most infinite"?

The best to think about it is, that the symbol for Infinity is not a certain number, but rather an abstract description, like "NaN" in CompSci.

>INFINITY IS NOT A NUMBER, BECAUSE, I-IT'S JUST NOT OKAY

Think about it this way:

multiplication is a function f: x -y-> z

and 0 is the zero element of this function, this means, f: x -0-> 0

Now division is the inverse function of multiplication, i.e.:

f^(-1): z -y-> x

If you include division by 0 in this

f^(-1): z -0-> x

You can map every number onto every other number. Hence it wouldn't be an function anymore

But since all elements multiplied with zero map to zero, you can't invert the

Because it maybe is true, but it cannot be formally demonstrated, therefore, it's undefined.

>it's true

>but it doesn't work

plenty of maths papers have been written supposing the Riemann Hypothesis is true, because it being true allows us to prove other shit.

these results with infinities and zeros allow us to do nothing that makes any sense