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 / Another Y2K Problem?

Author
Message
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 26th Oct 2007 10:02 Edited at: 26th Oct 2007 10:32
It just got me thinking after the 0/0 problem.
If the math coprocessor unit is unable to handle the expression 0/0 and produces an erroneous, overflow error, whereas it is still open to question whether 0/0 has a determinate value, I shudder to think of what would happen in mission critical applications where the processor suddenly encounters a 0/0 computation.

I think I've just started another storm in a teacup
Jeku
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posted: 26th Oct 2007 11:04
Nothing bad should happen at all, as long as the errors are properly trapped in the code. Go to your Windows calc and do 5/0, you will get "Cannot divide by zero." It doesn't crash, halt, or cause Windows to erase your hard drive. In today's world I'd find it hard to believe anything bad could happen from that. I said the same thing about Y2K and look what happened on January 1, 2000 ---- absolutely nothing.

mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 26th Oct 2007 11:12 Edited at: 26th Oct 2007 11:26
I was thinking along the lines that software always provide for an error trap for a divide by zero, because most quality code will disallow a divide by zero, anticipating its occourence in the denominator of an expression. But does that really mean that it can handle a numerator AND denominator which both take the value 0 at some point without giving a false overflow error.
In essence all coprocessors are accurate for all possible computations until one can prove that 0/0 is NOT indeterminate.
In future if 0/0 evaluates to any determinate value we have a serious bug in our hands, especially for mission critical apps.

Like I said, I think I've just started another storm in a teacup
Jeku, please lock this if its some inappropriate rambling of mine.
While we are at that point I was wondering if we could ask permission of the mods before starting certain topics. Like maybe a sticky titled "Permission to Post" where people could make requests for posts that they think might/might not get locked. That would avoid any unnecessary aggravation and post locking.
For instance, I want to start a topic on "Best Pickup Lines" and I already have 3 at the tip of my tongue. So can I do it?
Pretty please, with a cherry on top!
BatVink
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 26th Oct 2007 11:32
The check is the same - cannot divide by zero. The second figure in the calculation is irrelevant - that's the way it works in any software I've worked with.

demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 26th Oct 2007 12:27
I would think that the "best pickup lines" would be best kept to Seppuku's myspace group - anyway it could do with some more love seeing as me and Seppuku and Evil Star are pretty much the only people who've posted on it, as far as I know.

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 26th Oct 2007 15:21
Hey James, where's that post. I'd love to contribute.
Are you serious or just kidding? Is it here or on the Myspace forums?
Grandma
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th Dec 2005
Location: Norway, Guiding the New World Order
Posted: 26th Oct 2007 16:05
Quote: "Hey James, where's that post. I'd love to contribute.
Are you serious or just kidding? Is it here or on the Myspace forums?"


*Sends to seppuku's pager* "This is your cue, come advertise the Myspace group on the Y2K thread."

This message was brought to you by Grandma industries.

Making yesterdays games, today!
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 26th Oct 2007 16:05
look at Seppuku's post "solution" on here... that has a link to a group he's set up on myspace. That's where we're putting all our pointless crap so that we don't clog up these boards.

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
calcyman
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st Aug 2007
Location: The Uncertainty Principle
Posted: 26th Oct 2007 21:00 Edited at: 28th Oct 2007 10:20
Quote: "That's where we're putting all our pointless crap so that we don't clog up these boards."


Erm, this board is designed for putting "pointless crap" on. Lucky that there's users like Grandma to help improve it.

Your signature has been erased by a hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional being (a mod)
PowerSoft
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 10th Oct 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posted: 26th Oct 2007 21:46
Interestingly enough I heard of some software for one of the Navy's (eg US,UK,may have been a S. American one) that was locked onto a Tango, pressed the fire button and the system crashed due to DIVIO...

The Innuendo's, 4 Piece Indie Rock Band
http://theinnuendos.tk:::http://myspace.com/theinnuendosrock
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 26th Oct 2007 21:50
The programmer was supposed to have been fired, but a divide by zero error occurred every time HR tried to push the button.


The greatest multiplayer text adventure ever...
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 26th Oct 2007 23:11
You know, at the time of the Y2K problem I had thought up some zany solution where the world was running out of time before they could fix the bug, and I thought up something that would delay the bug for another 99 years, so people had ample time to sort out the code.
I've been trying to find the darn thing, but its stuffed somewhere among the pile of papers in my cabinet and I can't seem to find it.
Geeze if only I could remember...
It had something to do with shuffling the date... Oh the heck with it. When I find it I'll post it.
Aaron Miller
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 27th Oct 2007 06:42
@mamaji4
In calculator, 0/0 = Result of function is undefined.



Cheers,

-naota

DBP, $80. DBP's plugins, $320. Watching DBP Crash, Priceless.
NG Website Aex.Uni forums
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 27th Oct 2007 09:52
Yep. I quit the 0/0 thingy. It was driving me nuts, and everyone around me too.
Now I'm going nuts with the Y2K thingy. I think I should return to the sane world pretty soon. Enough geeky
Aaron Miller
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 27th Oct 2007 10:17
*ahem* If you really think about it, the logical answer to anything divided by zero is infinity. As 1 / 0.1 = 10, 1 / 0.01 = 100, 1 / 0.001 = 1000, etc.


Cheers,

-naota

DBP, $80. DBP's plugins, $320. Watching DBP Crash, Priceless.
NG Website Aex.Uni forums
Agent Dink
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Mar 2004
Location:
Posted: 27th Oct 2007 15:14
0/0 is 1. At least that's what my math books used to tell me.

Maybe they're screwed up though too

Warning: Please be advised. Geek Culture is under lockdown. All mods are set to Indi mode. Any and all topics WILL BE LOCKED. Post at your own risk!
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 27th Oct 2007 15:37
lol
Its guaranteed to screw up anyone's brains.
Dr Schnitzengruber
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Jul 2007
Location: C:/Projects/failed/ schnitzengruber
Posted: 27th Oct 2007 15:42
Quote: "
*ahem* If you really think about it, the logical answer to anything divided by zero is infinity. As 1 / 0.1 = 10, 1 / 0.01 = 100, 1 / 0.001 = 1000, etc."

I agree with that but nobody ever thinks it is because their calculater says 'Error'.


in my opinon, 0/0, ∞/∞ and ∞*0 can be any number since:

if a*b=c then c/b=a (eg. 2*3=6 and 6/3=2)

1*0=0 so 0/0=1?
79*0=0 so 0/0=79?
40*∞=∞ so ∞/∞=40?
89/∞=0 so 0*∞=89?

the answer to life the universe and everything = 42
Venge
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 13th Sep 2006
Location: Iowa
Posted: 27th Oct 2007 17:17
Quote: "∞*0 can be any number "


I believe infinity * 0 is still 0...
As for 0/0, you can say that 0/0=1 because 1*0=0, but this is true for any number.
So there is no answer really..
Samoz83
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd May 2003
Location: Stealing Ians tea from his moon base
Posted: 27th Oct 2007 17:20
Theres the year 2038 problem explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem

www.firelightstudio.co.uk
bitJericho
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 27th Oct 2007 17:27
how can infinity = 0? Not possible. The answer is undefined

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.divideby0.html


The greatest multiplayer text adventure ever...
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 27th Oct 2007 18:24
OH man we're not back on this one again are we?

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 27th Oct 2007 18:47 Edited at: 27th Oct 2007 18:51
lol James, I was thinking of warning them about the aggravation it caused all of us.

Maybe we could change the title of the current post to "Another 0/0 problem?" What is it about 0/0 that a Y2K post breaks down into a 0/0 one.
Keo C
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere between here and there.
Posted: 27th Oct 2007 19:55
Not Again, Well let me start off with....(Head explodes)

Uhhhhhhh.... I forgot

Keo's Linux Game Blog.
demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 27th Oct 2007 19:55
I don't know

I thought the 0/0 post was quite fun at first though. Trying to come up with as many different answers as I could, and watching other people try and convince each other of their own opinions while I sat here just trying to throw a spanner in the works

http://jamesmason01.googlepages.com/index.htm
GatorHex
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 5th Apr 2005
Location: Gunchester, UK
Posted: 27th Oct 2007 21:37 Edited at: 27th Oct 2007 21:42
if bottom#<>0
answer# = top#/bottom#
endif

Unix/Posix time is set to bug out in 2038 should be fun for web programmers who forgot to change to a 64bit OS/CPU

DinoHunter (still no nVidia compo voucher!), CPU/GPU Benchmark, DarkFish Encryption DLL, War MMOG (WIP), 3D Model Viewer
Keo C
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere between here and there.
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 00:54 Edited at: 28th Oct 2007 00:55
Quote: "Unix/Posix time is set to bug out in 2038 should be fun for web programmers who forgot to change to a 64bit OS/CPU"

Does that mean I have to switch to a 64-bit OS?

Uhhhhhhh.... I forgot

Keo's Linux Game Blog.
Benji
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 17th Dec 2005
Location: Mount Doom
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 01:43 Edited at: 28th Oct 2007 01:44
Quote: "0/0 is 1. At least that's what my math books used to tell me.

Maybe they're screwed up though too
"


0\0 is infinity.

Or so I think I remember being taught.

...
Aaron Miller
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 05:30
0\0 is infinity or 1. x\0 is infinity. In the above link if you put the "magic apple" of no size into a box that can only contain 100 normally sized apples, then the apple would STILL be in the box, and an infinite number of apples could still go in there. I don't see why people have to argue with LOGIC.


Cheers,

-naota

DBP, $80. DBP's plugins, $320. Watching DBP Crash, Priceless.
NG Website Aex.Uni forums
ionstream
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Jul 2004
Location: Overweb
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 05:36
1/0 is infinity (positive or negative depending on which side you're coming from), 0/0 is not.

That's not as bad as you think you said.
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 09:40
Oh..Oh... This thread is breaking down into a battle of egos again. I think I should direct you all to a single link so you will see there is no simple solution to this non-problem.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/British_computer_scientist%27s_new_%22nullity%22_idea_provokes_reaction_from_mathematicians
Aaron Miller
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 10:15 Edited at: 28th Oct 2007 10:31
Not egos. But what that says is true, only Chuck Norris can divide by zero, considering he has counted to infinity - twice.


But seriously....

1 / 0.1 = 10
1 / 0.01 = 100
1 / 0.001 = 1000
1 / 0.0001 = 10000

The answer to pure zero should be obvious. Going back to the apple in the box example, if you had an infinite supply of those "magical" apples, you could fit an infinite amount into the box because of their zero dimensions <Which quantum mechanics disallows, btw, but this is just an example>.


Cheers,

-naota

DBP, $80. DBP's plugins, $320. Watching DBP Crash, Priceless.
NG Website Aex.Uni forums
calcyman
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 31st Aug 2007
Location: The Uncertainty Principle
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 10:20
Infinity*0, 0/0 and Infinity/Infinity would return any positive real number, aka is a problem with an infinite number of solutions.

So, in actual fact, infinity*0 is all of those solutions simultaneously.

Your signature has been erased by a hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional being (a mod)
Aaron Miller
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 10:29 Edited at: 28th Oct 2007 10:30
0 is neither positive, nor negative. Problem then, eh?

And infinity * 0 is 0. Infinity/Infinity is 1.


Cheers,

-naota

DBP, $80. DBP's plugins, $320. Watching DBP Crash, Priceless.
NG Website Aex.Uni forums
Benjamin
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location: France
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 10:30
Quote: "0 / 0.1 = 10
0 / 0.01 = 100
0 / 0.001 = 1000
0 / 0.0001 = 10000"

I'd like to know what kind of calculator you're using.

Tempest (DBP/DBCe)
Multisync V1 (DBP/DBCe)
Aaron Miller
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Playing: osu!
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 10:31
Woops. I meant "1". 0 was just in mind, sorry 'bout that. I'll edit.

DBP, $80. DBP's plugins, $320. Watching DBP Crash, Priceless.
NG Website Aex.Uni forums
Diggsey
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Apr 2006
Location: On this web page.
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 11:37
When is anybody going to realise that the answer isn't one number, it is a range of numbers, defined by this:
oo >= n >= -oo

Where n = 0/0 and oo = Infinity


demons breath
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Oct 2003
Location: Surrey, UK
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 12:33
Diggsey that's quite possibly the least useful definition for anything I've ever seen ever in my entire life ever. (Sorry about the carrying on a lot longer than I should have done but... EVER!)

mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 12:56
lol Diggsey,
I daresay your symbol for infinity is exquisite.
Dr Schnitzengruber
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 19th Jul 2007
Location: C:/Projects/failed/ schnitzengruber
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 19:47
I agree with calcyman and Diggsey and the part of Aaron that said 1/0 is infinity. I don't agree that infinity/infinity is 1.

the answer to life the universe and everything = 42
David R
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Sep 2003
Location: 3.14
Posted: 28th Oct 2007 20:17
I personally think the whole 0/0 = infinity thing is kind of... not true.

If you divide a quantity by nothing, it makes sense to assume you can 'fit' an infinite quantity of nothing within 'something'. But if you have nothing, you cannot fit an infinite quantity of nothing inside of nothing - it's just... nothing :/


09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 29th Oct 2007 14:16
If Prof. Anderson can coin the axiom "nullity", I shall dare to coin The Resursive Definition of Infinity. All converse arguments given below are applicable for minus infinity.
"Infinity, on the Real number line, is a number that is greater than infinity"

PROOF:
------
Think of any number on the Real number line.
If you can think of it, it cannot be greater than itself.
Therefore, only a number you cannot think of would be greater than
itslef. (Is this a limitation of the human mind? I wonder.) - (1)
But infinity is the only number on the number line that you cannot
think of.
Therefore, by (1), infinity is greater than itself.
Therefore, we have shown that the original definition of infinity we started off with is true.

Practical example of Recursive Infinity:
----------------------------------------
When the barber holds a mirror at the back of your head, the reflected images in the two mirrors get smaller and smaller till they become infinitesimally small.

Practical use of Recursive Infinity:
------------------------------------
Recursive functions like the factorial function are infinity being put to practical use. Infinity isn't as useless as we thought it was.

Boy, I think I've really done it this time. A tsunami in a teacup, to coin a new phrase.
The floor is open for discussion and this time I won't be
participating. I can do without the aggravation.
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 29th Oct 2007 14:44
Quote: "PROOF:
------
Think of any number on the Real number line.
If you can think of it, it cannot be greater than itself.
Therefore, only a number you cannot think of would be greater than
itslef. (Is this a limitation of the human mind? I wonder.) - (1)
But infinity is the only number on the number line that you cannot
think of.
Therefore, by (1), infinity is greater than itself.
Therefore, we have shown that the original definition of infinity we started off with is true."


Oh my god you must be joking me. You can't use an assumption to prove an assumption.

Quote: "But infinity is the only number on the number line that you cannot
think of."


Where's the proof for this as well? What about Chris's Number, which I define as a number not equal to infinity that you can't think of.

Also, "Dr" Anderson is not a mathematician, he is in fact the laughing stock of his maths faculty at wherever (Reading Uni I think) he teaches.

If you need a proof of how poor he is at Maths, he has obviously never heard of Nullity, which is actually a word already, though it has nothing to do with dividing by zero. The nullity of an operator is the dimensions of the space it maps to (I think). So the cross product would have nullity of 3, and the dot product would have nullity of 1.

-= Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals =-
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 29th Oct 2007 14:54
lol Chris, I was wondering when you would post.
Of course there are numbers other than infinity that you can't think of. Like 0/0
Chris' number is not valid because you have not defined what number it is that you cannot think of. So it might as well be infinity or not infinity.
I have shown at least one number that you cannot think of. It's 0/0.
All you had to do Chris was say 0/0

Of course the proof isn't valid, but then try defining infinity, leave alone proving it. I think I attempted to do more than defining infinity.
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 29th Oct 2007 15:00
Wait, so you're happily allowed to define 0/0 as a number you can't think of, not equal to infinity, but I'm not allowed to define my number?

Did you claim to have got a perfect score in your college entrance exam? What college are you at?

-= Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals =-
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 29th Oct 2007 15:00
Quote: "You can't use an assumption to prove an assumption."


Statement (1) is not an assumption in that there may be a large set of numbers that you cannot think of and it might not be a closed set.
However, if you had said I used an untrue statement to prove a theorem you would be right.
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 29th Oct 2007 15:02 Edited at: 29th Oct 2007 15:42
Quote: "but I'm not allowed to define my number?
"


Of course you're allowed to. Its just that you DIDN'T define any number whereas I did.

At this point I would like to improve the proof by changing statement (1) to
...
Therefore, only a number you cannot think of, which is greater than any number you can think of, would be greater than itslef.
But infinity is the only number on the number line that you cannot
think of which is greater than any number you can think of.
...

Quote: "What college are you at?"

I do sound like a first grader, don't I.

Quote: "The nullity of an operator is the dimensions of the space it maps to (I think)."

Is that an assumption or a surety. "I think" implies uncertainty. "I'm sure" implies certainty. I hope you're not making any assumptions.
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 29th Oct 2007 15:18 Edited at: 29th Oct 2007 15:19
Ok then, here is a proof of pythagoras's theorem:



I derived a truth from my original assumption, but that doesn't mean it is a valid proof, it is, in fact, complete junk. I haven't shown anything.

I mean, the same process would "work" if I originally assumed that a + b = c or c = a - b... both of which are blatantly wrong.

You still haven't answered what college you are at, the GRE tests are for entrance to college yes?

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

Attachments

Login to view attachments
mamaji4
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 24th Nov 2002
Location:
Posted: 29th Oct 2007 15:20 Edited at: 29th Oct 2007 15:23
I'm in first grade. I think that makes me a High Schooler.

The Pythogaras Theorem is NOT an assumption
a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is not an assumption. Measure the length of side a, side b and side c of a right angled triangle. You can be SURE it is not an assumption, other than my going into a lengthy mathematical proof, which would make you doubly sure its not an assumption.
Chris K
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Oct 2003
Location: Lake Hylia
Posted: 29th Oct 2007 15:24
But you said you got 800/800 in GRE, don't you take that when you leave high school?

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

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2024-11-19 11:19:50
Your offset time is: 2024-11-19 11:19:50