Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / Math Question

Author
Message
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 24th Oct 2007 15:56
a/a=1
therefore 0/0 should equal 1

but it's always seemed logical to me that it should equal infinity

and I thought up a proof earlier that it would equal 0 (but that was quite possibly flawed as I can't remember it right now)

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
Insert Name Here
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Mar 2007
Location: Worcester, England
Posted: 24th Oct 2007 16:08
If you've got some of something and you never share it out, it logically means that you have...
No, I had an idea and now I've lost it.

the rabi, Nancy DrewG and Sudoku Arts.

mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 24th Oct 2007 16:46
@INH

That should get people thinking.
PowerSoft
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Oct 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 24th Oct 2007 17:30
PH,
I know why you WOULD use i for the letter foo....stop being pedantic

Just so that you don't think I'm some bluthering idiot I am actually doing FMaths A-Level (for those people who know what I mean by that)

The Innuendo's, 4 Piece Indie Rock Band
http://theinnuendos.tk:::http://myspace.com/theinnuendosrock
Peter H
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Feb 2004
Location: Witness Protection Program
Posted: 24th Oct 2007 21:44 Edited at: 24th Oct 2007 21:45
Quote: "If there is no space between x and i , you would have to specify that
a)It is not an implicit multiplication of two variables x and i
b)When using the {} notation it is necessary to specify the exact spacing because it would be assumed that a variable x without an immediately following brace is not a subscripted variable. And no other meaning has been assigned to standalone curly braces other than their use as holders of subscripted variables. "

it is a subscript did you even look at that link i kindly provided? nobody would mistake a subscript for implicit multiplication unless they typed it out like "xi" on a computer... which is their fault for not using the correct word editing software/not knowing html...

Quote: "PH,
I know why you WOULD use i for the letter foo....stop being pedantic

Just so that you don't think I'm some bluthering idiot I am actually doing FMaths A-Level (for those people who know what I mean by that)"

i'm not really sure what you're trying to say with the whole pedantic thing ... but if it helps i'll have all the credits at uni for a math minor after this semester(taking statistics... not my cup of tea at all)... of course that doesn't mean i know what i'm talking about, that could just mean i know how to learn material, take tests, then forget it all

One man, one lawnmower, plenty of angry groundhogs.
Insert Name Here
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Mar 2007
Location: Worcester, England
Posted: 24th Oct 2007 21:47
OooH, are we comparing maths grades? Ooh ooh ooh, I'm the BHMS Junior Mathmatics Champion!

Like that means anything.

the rabi, Nancy DrewG and Sudoku Arts.

mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 24th Oct 2007 22:54 Edited at: 24th Oct 2007 23:32
Quote: " nobody would mistake a subscript for implicit multiplication unless they typed it out like "xi" on a computer..."


I think it was clear from my first post that we would be "typing it out on the computer". That was the whole idea of creating a standard noatation, to avoid any confusion, while making math posts on the forum.

Quote: "of course that doesn't mean i know what i'm talking about, that could just mean i know how to learn material, take tests, then forget it all"


Haha. Peter, that's me talking.
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 00:35
Well the answer is simple...it's all about chromosomes...It's a constant battle between the second part of the gender gene. In question, Algebra is the battle of the sexes my friend - who's better,? Men or women...z is for well, the kind that are both.

Notice how Y should always be greater than X? But X always seems to look nicer?


Right in all seriousness:


You need to look at the origin of language - now people mentioned Greek - like with our modern Roman character set each symbol doesn't mean anything an represents a consonant or a vowel...Now from the Phoenician, each letter/symbol meant something as they all came from ancient cuneiform writing systems - for example A, alpha in Greek and Alpu from its semitic orgins which means Bull. B - Beta, Beth(Hebrew) means Court/Courtyard. G/C, Gamma, Gamel (Now is camel as the G became a C and the g went some where else) and so on.

So I wonder, perhaps it is the old meanings where X, Y and Z come from and perhaps it's because the Greek adapted it in algebra that they sit at the end of our alphabet rather than they were originally...really this is just an educated guess as I cannot be bothered to look it up right now.

I love Nancy DrewG, but not insert brain here
Zeus
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Jul 2006
Location: Atop Mount Olympus
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 00:38
Oh no, Seppuku is online.

STOP reading my signature!
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 00:43 Edited at: 25th Oct 2007 00:44
lol.
Welcome Seppuku. From one strange man to another, would you care to share your wisdom with us on what 0/0 evaluates to.
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 00:49 Edited at: 25th Oct 2007 00:53
Quote: "OooH, are we comparing maths grades? Ooh ooh ooh, I'm the BHMS Junior Mathmatics Champion!"


@INH
lol. And I got an 800/800 in my GRE Math. But that doesn't make me a mathematician.

OH! The cats out of the bag. Now you know MAMAJI is an acronym for MAtheMAtecianJim not MAchoMAnJim.
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 00:52 Edited at: 25th Oct 2007 00:55
lol Jordan, I'm on topic - as I kind of apologise for going too off topic in certain threads, I'm keeping relevant, but won't be boring. (And apologise for being a bad influence) But by saying that I'm changing the subject...Anyway Language and Algebra. On topic...

mamaji, I don't know where the question comes from but I am not a good maths man - you can see with my previous post my love lies in Language...but 0/0 is it that 0 divided by 0 or 0 as a fraction etc. all I can say is, it can only be 0 as there's no other number there...Unless it's one of those weird maths things I don't see - to be honest my friend I barely understand trigonometry.

but looking at that, it seems that was supposed to be insane and the answer obvious, which it does look to me...if so then what on Earth? I don't honestly know where that came from. lol


Edit...If you wanted insanity then '0/0' is a zero with a sword attacking another zero or even two eyes and a nose...if you look into it you can pull out a lot of things...Glasses?

I love Nancy DrewG, but not insert brain here
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 00:55
Seppuku,

How enlightening. I knew you would come through on such a profound topic.
Zeus
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Jul 2006
Location: Atop Mount Olympus
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 00:55
Quote: "(And apologise for being a bad influence)"


You are the best influence ever.

On-topic:

Sorry I do not know a thing on algebra.

STOP reading my signature!
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 00:57 Edited at: 25th Oct 2007 00:58
You confuse me a little. Are you trying to be serious or insane?

[edit mamaji is the confusing one here, not Jordan, he confuses me in ways that aren't relevant to the topic)

I love Nancy DrewG, but not insert brain here
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 01:02
I tend to have that kind of influence on people, but pretty soon they get used to me. Give it time. You too will.

I meant, you did give a relevant answer on a rather profound topic like Abstract Math. Comprendez vouz?
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 01:12
oh I think I remembered the 0/0=0 idea I forgot earlier

a/b=a*(1/b)=0*(1/0)
Anything*0=0 therefore 0/0=0*(1/0)=0

added to my earlier
Quote: "a/a=1
therefore 0/0 should equal 1"


and the logical
as i->0, 1/(x{i})->infinity (using mamaji's funky little brackets, so yah boo sucks to whoever complained 'cos I don't know how to do subscript on these forums) therefore 1/0=infinity

although that could be asymptotic as 1/(x{i})->minus infinity for i->0 where i starts from a negative number

In fact tending towards 0 implies not ever reaching it, so in this case it would be a mathematical impossibility, much like ln0 (unless that is actually possible and I'm just being braindead)

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 01:19
Oh it is a general maths problem...personally I think the answer is obvious...

A general rule in logic and mathematics (despite those who say you can create matter, but I'll just say in general just to avoid contradiction) is that you can't make something out of nothing.

So when there is nothing and you throw other numbers into the equation - if those numbers become 0 in any form or another (eg. 4x0) it'll always be 0.

Of course it's a good trick to fool youngsters with, in 6th form I had to do a quiz for the lower years, I included a really difficult sum times by 0 (or to the power of, I can't remember which) and quite a number tried to calculate the difficult sum because they didn't see the 0 that killed the values of all of the other numbers.

As for the rest of the maths problems...anything more complex scares me, I only have a C in GCSE maths and that doesn't say much at all!

I love Nancy DrewG, but not insert brain here
Zeus
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Jul 2006
Location: Atop Mount Olympus
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 01:22 Edited at: 25th Oct 2007 01:22
Sudoku Farts. lol.

STOP reading my signature!
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 01:26
Quote: "A general rule in logic and mathematics (despite those who say you can create matter, but I'll just say in general just to avoid contradiction) is that you can't make something out of nothing.

So when there is nothing and you throw other numbers into the equation - if those numbers become 0 in any form or another (eg. 4x0) it'll always be 0. "


but when you times it becomes 0. Here you are doing the opposite, so it shouldn't have the same result.

and equations involving 0 don't always become 0. 3+0=3, not 0. likewise 137-0.

x^0=1 for any number (except possibly 0 again. Hmm that's a tricky one...)

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 01:34
Quote: "
but when you times it becomes 0. Here you are doing the opposite, so it shouldn't have the same result."


You mean dividing by 0?

The principle does apply to adding and subtraction...I think you're thinking things too universally - the 0 in an equation does mean something is 0)

Put it this way...

I have 0 cakes and I double the amount of cake I have...I have nothing there to double, so I still get now cakes. (0x2)

If I have 3 cakes and I give them to 0 people, there is no cake given. (3/0)

If I have 2 cakes and don't add another cake, I still have 2 cakes...(2+0)

If I have 4 cakes and take none away, I still have 4. (4-0)

In general the idea should apply...Or did I not make myself clear beforehand what I meant? Because this seems like very basic maths to me.

I love Nancy DrewG, but not insert brain here
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 01:49
but in your example, someone still has the three cakes. they have just been divided by one. and you've kept them all. and probably eaten them if I know you, but they've still been divided by one.

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 02:01
Well the idea is the 3 cakes have been divided between 0 number of people...not even the person with the cake gets it, it's thrown straight into the trash...maybe they ate too much pizza and didn't want it?

If you really want me, I'll try harder with my example to make the point...of course it'll logically be zero:

Somebody baked a cake, it's there - cut into 3 pieces, but there's nobody to have the cake - it's left there - everybody went to watch the football with some beer (Dazzag?) So the number of pieces isn't divide against anybody - so nobody has any cake, the cake is thrown away, and is rotting into compost, so the number of cake slices possessed = 0, as they weren't divided between those people. Whether there were two or 20, that cake isn't given to anyone, because they prefer beer.

I love Nancy DrewG, but not insert brain here
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 02:03
Quote: "that cake isn't given to anyone, because they prefer beer"


And damn right too. Nevertheless the cake exists. It has been divided by one, THEN disposed of. In fact, it hasn't really been divided at all.

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 02:34
I think you're missing the point...perhaps the cake version of maths didn't explain what I was getting at.

3 = 3
0 = 0

3 exists and is given to bob, bob doesn't want it anymore and there are 3 people in the distance, he gives it to them in equal parts, each person gets a single piece (3/3 = 1)

6 exists and is give Jack, Jack as well doesn't want 6, he wants to give it to someone or a group of people to share...but no one is there to share it with and throws 6 away, how much of 6 do all of the people have? None (6/0 = 0)

So with 0/0, there is nothing and nobody to receive everything and of those 0 people they each receive nothing.

Is that a better version? Still it's basic maths, because if it wasn't, you wouldn't here me arguing a point.

I love Nancy DrewG, but not insert brain here
Venge
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2006
Location: Iowa
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 05:38
Chuck Norris can divide by zero.
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 14:26 Edited at: 25th Oct 2007 14:58
Quote: "My take on 0/0

Let 0/0 = x
Therefore, 0 = x*0 - equn.(1)
equn. (1) holds true for any value of x in the Complex plane
i.e. 0/0 has an infinite number of solutions. "


I just discovered a basic flaw in my proof, which means the problem is still unsolved and in the class of NaN(Not a Number)

In equn.(1) I obtained 0 = x*0
This was after the following step
Let 0/0 = x
Multiplying each side by 0 we get
(0/0)*0 = x*0 - equn. 2
I then proceed to leave 0 on the L.H.S of the equn. assuming that
(1/0)*(0/1) = 1 - equn. 3
But 0 has no multiplicative inverse, where the multiplicative inverse of x = 1/x
i.e. the multiplicative inverse of 0 cannot be 1/0 because 1/0 is undefined or tending to infinity, whichever context you desire to choose.
The fact remains that if 0 does not have a multiplicative inverse,
equn. 3 is a falsity.
Therefore, the operation that resulted in equn. (1) is mathematically inaccurate and cannot be applied.
Which leaves us with the problem statement as before
i.e. 0/0 = x and we have to proceed from here once again using valid mathematical assumptions.

Dang!! And just when I was about to invite the Press.
PowerSoft
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Oct 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 15:28
Um, the first basic flaw is you can't divide by 0...

The Innuendo's, 4 Piece Indie Rock Band
http://theinnuendos.tk:::http://myspace.com/theinnuendosrock
Diggsey
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 15:39
If:
a = b/c
Then:
b = a*c

If:
b = 0
c = 0
Then:
a = 0/0
0 = a*0

Any number multiplied by 0 equals 0
So:
0/0 = Anything you want

We all win

mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 15:40 Edited at: 25th Oct 2007 15:46
@Powersoft
If that were true people wouldn't still be trying to solve this problem

Refer link earlier provided
From link
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/British_computer_scientist%27s_new_%22nullity%22_idea_provokes_reaction_from_mathematicians

Limit x/y does have not one but two solutions depending on whether
y->0

y->0 from the positive side or the negative side of the real number line.
So it all depends on what context of math your looking to solve the problem in.

Another earlier post
Quote: "Abstract algebra
Any number system which forms a commutative ring, as do the integers, the real numbers, and the complex numbers, for instance, can be extended to a wheel in which division by zero is always possible, but division has then a slightly different meaning.
"
From the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero#_note-0


@Diggsey

That is the essence of my proof. However, as 0 cannot have a multiplicative inverse, it is basically flawed.
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 15:42
@Diggsey

That was the essence of my proof. Which I believe is flawed, as I stated earlier.
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 15:44
@Diggsey

That was the essence of my proof. Which as I mentioned is flawed because 0 does not have a multiplicative inverse.
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 15:46
@Diggsey

That is the essence of my proof. However, as 0 cannot have a multiplicative inverse, it is basically flawed.
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 15:47
Hahaha diggsey I like your proof

and this is really a rather perplexing puzzle.

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 15:52 Edited at: 25th Oct 2007 15:55
Geeze man, I've triple posted. How dumb of me, I didn't realise the post wasn't appearing because it had shifted to the next page.
Mods please remove the repetitive posts.

Check out this news item where where Dr. James Anderson provided another proof for the same problem

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/British_computer_scientist%27s_new_%22nullity%22_idea_provokes_reaction_from_mathematicians
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 16:13
Quote: "Chris, I know its subscript but I wouldn't personally use i at all, I mean we have r (yet that could get mixed up with product moment and spearmans) and 22 other letters we could possibly use whats the point of using i?"


It's because i, j and k are always used as the components or coordinates of something. In the summation convention, you're generally summing components, or different products of components or something so it makes absolute sense to use i.

@ Everyone

0/0 is not zero, and not 1. It's undefined, that is the end of the discussion, stop trying to produce "proofs" to calculate it.

What's more interesting is limits of fractions where the top and bottom both go to zero.

For example, when x is zero, sin( x ) is zero, and cos( x ) = 1, or 1 - cos( x ) is zero.

But if we think about the fractions sin( x ) / x and ( 1 - cos( x ) ) / x, and then make x smaller and smaller, they both tend (in a way) to "0/0" but they actually go to different values, sinx/x goes to 1 and 1 - cosx/x goes to 0.

The proofs of that are not hard to understand.

(by the way you shouldn't use a Taylor Series or L'Hopital's Rule to work out those fractions because you actually need to know what they come to to prove that the derivative of sinx is cosx)

-= Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals =-
PowerSoft
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Oct 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 16:24
Obviously i would make perfect sense in a context with other letters (r,s,t x,y,z a,b,c) but I wouldn't (personally) use i on its own if you see what I mean.

The Innuendo's, 4 Piece Indie Rock Band
http://theinnuendos.tk:::http://myspace.com/theinnuendosrock
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 16:54
@Chris we know we're just messing about with it. God I'm a geek.
"What did you do over your holidays James?"
"Well mostly I worked, but when I felt like really cutting loose I had some fun defining 0/0"

Hardcore party animal, eh?

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
Insert Name Here
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 20th Mar 2007
Location: Worcester, England
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 16:56
0/0=0/(a/a)=(a/a)-(a/a/)/(a/a)-(a/a/)

the rabi, Nancy DrewG and Sudoku Arts.

mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 17:09 Edited at: 25th Oct 2007 17:15
Quote: "0/0 is not zero, and not 1. It's undefined, that is the end of the discussion, stop trying to produce "proofs" to calculate it."


Go tell Dr. James Anderson that. I'm sure he'll agree.

Quote: "But if we think about the fractions sin( x ) / x and ( 1 - cos( x ) ) / x, and then make x smaller and smaller, they both tend (in a way) to "0/0" but they actually go to different values, sinx/x goes to 1 and 1 - cosx/x goes to 0."


The problem here is not to demonstrate the limit of a function of x as x -> 0. Its more than that. We want the numerator to be exactly 0 and the denominator to be exactly 0 and try to figure out where on the number line it is or whether it is NaN (not a number)
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 17:27
Quote: "0/0=0/(a/a)=(a/a)-(a/a/)/(a/a)-(a/a/)"


a/a=1 not 0

0 =/= 1

therefore you're talking poo.

sarcasm?

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 17:28
Quote: "0/0=0/(a/a)=(a/a)-(a/a/)/(a/a)-(a/a/)"


Lol. I think everybody's going sort of nutty with the 0/0 thingy and maybe Chris is right and we should leave Dr. Anderson and his gang to do the figuring out, before we all start running around like zombies with o/o in our eyes.
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 17:29
but how comes some poxy doctor I've never heard of gets to have all the fun, when we know I'm really so much cleverer than him. I counted all the way to 17 yesterday. I'd like to see him do that.

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 17:34
Hah. I counted to 18. Beat you there on the IQ.
Boy Anderson's going to get a complex just being in our presence.
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 17:36
Quote: "@ Everyone

0/0 is not zero, and not 1. It's undefined, that is the end of the discussion, stop trying to produce "proofs" to calculate it.

What's more interesting is limits of fractions where the top and bottom both go to zero.

For example, when x is zero, sin( x ) is zero, and cos( x ) = 1, or 1 - cos( x ) is zero.

But if we think about the fractions sin( x ) / x and ( 1 - cos( x ) ) / x, and then make x smaller and smaller, they both tend (in a way) to "0/0" but they actually go to different values, sinx/x goes to 1 and 1 - cosx/x goes to 0.

The proofs of that are not hard to understand."



Well, I know what the proves...A C in GCSE Maths doesn't suffice in the real world... I knew there was something strange about having a chav for a Maths teacher.

But if it's undefined, then surely there is no value and then the value is 0, because 0 contains no value, it is nothing, zilch, the absence of any worth? That's the way I understand it, I trust that you're right, it just to be nothing/no value = 0 - so in my mind it still is 0. As 0x0 = 0. (You can see why I didn't do Maths at A Level. )

I love Nancy DrewG, but not insert brain here
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 17:40
@Seppuku: Undefined doesn't mean 0. 0 is a definition of something.

For example, you want to know how many pixies are currently in Berlin. At the moment it is an undefined number. It could be 38972395, or it could be 17. However, if it was 0, you would know exactly how many pixies there were in Berlin - none.

I wonder how many pixies there are in Berlin?

@Mamaji:
Quote: "Hah. I counted to 18. Beat you there on the IQ. "

You mean 18's AFTER 17? ****** I might not be able to count as high as I thought after all...



Quote: "Boy Anderson's going to get a complex just being in our presence."

You'd almost feel sorry for him. But it's his own fault. Don't try and compete if you can't play with the big boys.

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 17:42
Quote: "You mean 18's AFTER 17?"


I could be wrong. Maybe it comes before 17.
Hey, you're smarter than me. Anderson doesn't stand the chance of a snowball in hell competing with us.
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 17:49
Quote: "Hey, you're smarter than me."


You've got to be joking mate. I'm just blagging things in the most believable way I know. I only got a B in AS level maths (I'm resitting 2/3 of my maths AS level this year to try and get it up to a high A, as well as 1/3 of my English and 1/3 of my German. Psychology I got kicked out of within the first half term of my AS Levels, so luckily I don't have anything to resit as I wasn't allowed to take the exams in the first place).

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
Diggsey
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 17:50 Edited at: 25th Oct 2007 17:50
0/0 is defined. I just defined it

I can also plot 0/0 on a number line:


Attachments

Login to view attachments
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 25th Oct 2007 18:02
That Dr Anderson guy is a nut. It's complete junk what he says.

-= Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals =-

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-19 13:35:45
Your offset time is: 2024-11-19 13:35:45