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

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?

1. 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

sure it is, at ±∞

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

Not all functions have to be continuous.

2. 2 months ago
Anonymous

because that would mean infinity * 0 = 1

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

0/0 = 1
correct

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

1 != 0
Q.E.D.

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

>1 != 0
No one said that

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

But isn't 0! = 1?

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

crazy how 0 != 1
but also 0! = 1

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

>?

0^0 = 1
when they are going to fix this broken system?

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

That makes sense though

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

So you think this makes sense?
0*infinity =1
0*1 = 0
Therefore:
0*(0*infinity) = 0

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

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.

3. 2 months ago
Anonymous

1/Infinity = 0?

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

why not?

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

Infinity is not defined on the number line

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

>let there exist a number h s.t 1/h = 0
>h not in N
>sup(N) = h
correct

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

Because then: 2/Infinity = 0
and therefore: Infinity/Infinity = 0

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

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.

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

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.

4. 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

5. 2 months ago
Anonymous

Infinity is relative or subjective

6. 2 months ago
Anonymous

Because it's
>useless
>awkward
Infinity is more complicated than a single number. For instance different functions approach infinite at different rates.

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

irrelevant

irrelevant

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

7. 2 months ago
Anonymous

0 and infinity are not real.

8. 2 months ago
Anonymous

In projective space it is.

9. 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

10. 2 months ago
Anonymous

zero isn't 0.001

11. 2 months ago
Anonymous

infinity is not a number (in-finite-y)
how can a number divided by another number equal not a number?

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

>how can a number divided by another number equal not a number?
ok then explain [math] sqrt{-1}=i [/math]

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

It fucks everything up

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

1 = 2

>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

12. 2 months ago
Anonymous

It fucks everything up

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

1 = 2

13. 2 months ago
Anonymous

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?

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

retard

14. 2 months ago
Anonymous

BeeP

15. 2 months ago
Anonymous

Have product, divide it no times, still have product

16. 2 months ago
Anonymous

1/-0.1=-10
1/-0.01=-100
1/-0.001=-1000
1/-0.0001=-10000
1/0=-infinity

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

why cant negative zero exist?

17. 2 months ago
Anonymous

1/0 * 0 = Infinity * 0
1 = Infinity * 0

18. 2 months ago
Anonymous

[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]

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

Now transfer the coordinate system onto a sphere.

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

:^)

19. 2 months ago
Anonymous

ok now try it with negatives 🙂

20. 2 months ago
Anonymous

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.

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

>But 0 has the property that 0 * x = 0.
which is not actually based on anything, just completely made up for convenience

21. 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

22. 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

23. 2 months ago
Anonymous

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.

24. 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

Welcome to the club

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

But I really am incredibly smart.
If you weren't so dumb, you would know that!
Maybe the problem lies entirely within you?

25. 2 months ago
a_fungus

>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

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

it's trivial to do so, use your brain
[spoiler]the redpill is they end up indistinguishable from the infinitesimals used in calculus[spoiler]

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

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!

26. 2 months ago
Anonymous

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.

27. 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

28. 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

29. 2 months ago
Anonymous

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

• 2 months ago
Anonymous

>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