I might have just disproved math. Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT | |

No, because only Chuck Norris can divide by Zero | |

Seems logical, but I have a (probably stupid/obvious) question. When working with the field of "normal" real numbers, I have often (I think?) multiplied by 0. for example in the quadratic x^2=0, the solutions are both zero. This is apparently a thing you would do using the "rules of calculus" (I think, anyway). If you are never allowed to use the number 0 in the "normal" real numbers, How come I seem to come across it so much in my "normal" maths lessons? Can you explain, please? Hopefully I haven't made too many idiotic statements. | |

To quote the Terminator in T2, "It doesn't work that way." Seriously though. What many people don't realize is that the "rules of mathematics" are actually completely arbitrary and have no relation whatsoever to the "real world". All concepts in Mathematics are idealized abstractions and have nothing to do with the "real world" other than maybe being inspired by their "real world analog". The reason maths is useful at all is because many things in the real world approximate or correctly maps to some of the abstract mathematical concepts being studied - if they do great, or they don't too bad. The rules of mathematics (a.k.a. axioms) are for most part completely "made up". They are most of the time chosen because they are "interesting" to the mathematician and occasionally because it's useful.** **However they do have to be "consistent", meaning they must not contradict one another. | |

I think that's going a bit too far.
Put simply, it's because fields have been built to account for that. So they allow it. One reason it's okay, is because you can do multiplication by 0 using the addition of the field instead of the multiplication. | |

A bad calculator will say "error" | |

Your point is not idiotic at all, indeed I was a bit unclear about that. | |

You still can't do that mathematical operation. Again, the beginning of your proof is based on the simple mathematical principal of "moving from one side to the other" which is in fact creating an x/x = 1 situation. What you've just told me still doesn't hold up though. 0(0/0) won't evaluate to 0=x(0) (for one thing 0/0 is undefined, but let's roll with it) you'll wind up with 0=x, therefore 0=0 and still doesn't disprove that x/0 is undefined (as in indeterminate) ... Oddly enough, (contrary to what the great Yahtzee says) Alice in wonderland is a book about how silly mathematics is. | |

As has been mentioned before, i is not a paradox - the letter is a representation of a number that, when squared, is equal to -1. The thing about i is it does not lie on the real number line (hence the term "imaginary"), because it is not a member of the set of real numbers (pretty much by definition, because any real number times itself cannot be less than 0). But the set of complex numbers, of which i is a member, does not take the form of a line - it's a plane, and because of this fact, the complex numbers have certain properties that the real numbers don't. For example, every root of every complex number is itself a complex number. (For real numbers, this is only true for roots of positive numbers and even roots of negative numbers - all other roots of negative numbers are complex numbers, of which the real numbers are a subset.) The mathematics of the complex plane give rise to a special identity, e^(i*pi)+1=0, aka Euler's Identity. One of the consequences of this identity is that using complex numbers greatly simplifies the analysis and design of digital signal filters. To say nothing of the quaternions, a higher-dimension analog of the complex plane in which -1 has three square roots, labeled i, j, and k. One notable use of quaternions is as a representation of camera rotations and orientations in 3D games that allows for freely-rotating cameras that are immune to Gimbal Lock. In short, just because you can't personally see applications for a given bit of math, doesn't mean those applications don't exist. | |

i dont mean to be a party pooper, but this is wrong. 0 plays a role in the methods of calculus, but before calculus was even discovered the definition of 0, and all its interesting properties, had been solidified and accepted. see thread here on the escapist titled
| |

No. You didn't. It's like trying to disprove the fact that you have ten fingers by repeatedly counting them and every time you get 10 you say you made a mistake and have another go. | |

no you did not and cannot disprove math. At best you found a fallacy and even then its probably a known fallacy. | |

Multiplying both sides of the equation by zero is eqivalent to wiping the equation off the blackboard. It makes the value of both sides of the equation zero for sure, but in the process it destroys any meaning the equation might have had. At the end of the day, all you've 'proved' is that zero equals zero. | |

...ninja'd by OP himself. The larger point I'd make is that Zero always = nothing. It's representative of something that doesn't exist; it's a unique, even singular, number. | |

Is this now 6 pages of people saying "you can't divide by 0"? | |

Oh God. If there was any doubts by anyone that you knew math, this just verified them. This is a basic rule of math. Go back to Elementary school. I figured this was going to be stupid the moment I read the title of this thread, and now I have been proven correct. Unlike your math. | |

Did you read the recent escapist headline where a 10-year old girl discovered a new molecule when she asked a question to her chemist teacher? --- I think the worst thing to do is to think "people must have thought about this before" when you have an idea. Better to test it, experiment, think, share, talk about it than assume your own ignorance and defer to others mindlessly. | |

I believe this thread has been done before. It would save you from half of this community being dicks towards you. | |

Its Infinite how many times does any number go into zero? Infinity its called an Asymptote | |

anytime anyone ever thinks that they have "disproved math" they almost always have divided by zero somewhere along the way. just saying, its one of the most overlooked mistakes it seems. | |

Again, why not? I'm not saying its not true or that I don't know why, I want you to tell me WHY I can't. | |

That's like demanding why I can't take the square root of the multiplication operator. It simply does not make sense with the terms involved. And why do you keep asking? There's a post right at the top of this page that says why in explicit detail. | |

x/0.5 = 2x Just had to put that out there | |

Dividing means putting something in a number of boxes (divide by 1, get one box of numbers; divide by two, number gets placed in 2 boxes;...). You can't put something in zero boxes. Some people claim you get infinity, but that's actually an approximation of the actual number that is used in slightly more complicated math with graphs and limits. | |

1. 0/0 looks like it should equal 0, but it does not. It is undefined, since you're dividing by zero. The rule is "if you divide by zero, it's undefined". 2. You say that "x can be any number". Well, yes, by definition it can be, that's why it's a variable. 3. You get to the point of "0/x = 0". This is not something where you need to bother with what x is or evaluating or plugging in for x--zero divided by anything is zero. But again, see point 1, since dividing by zero is always the exception. 4. You set up a specific equation and solved it for x. Even assuming that 0/0 = 0 and is not undefined, there is still absolutely no possible logical jump you can make to get from "x=0, so 0 can equal any number". It seems like you completely misunderstood the basic concept of a variable: a variableis something you use to stand in for a value or an expression. In this case, there is only value of x that satisfies your equation (again, ignoring the 0/0 problem), and you solved for it. Here, "x" can represent any number only in so far as it can represent any | |

You think that is interesting? Try this on for size. infinity / 2 = 0.5 infinity = infinity whole number (wn) infinity < real number (rn) infinity There are different sizes of infinity that are infinitely equal. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-infinity-comes-in-different-sizes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor Off topic- WTF?!?!?!?!?! How am I supposed to type Arabic? | |

Sorry double post. | |

And the virtual beatdown was immense. OP, keep your hopes up. The world is a nicer place than you might suspect by reading a gaming website thread. I was once thoroughly thoroughly convinced that my numerical method for deriving pi was correct. I actually said out loud, "Maybe pi is wrong." before I spotted my error an hour or so later. (This was from a college graduate with a 3.88GPa in mechanical engineering.) I am glad that I did not have easy access to the internet back then to have made such a dopey statement in traceable written format. Don't give up on the idea that something can't be done just because nobody has done it. (Recent point in case: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115697-10-Year-Old-Accidentally-Discovers-New-Explosive-Molecule ) [parting jab] 0/3 = 0/1 it follows that 1=3 [/parting jab] | |

The imaginary number 'i' (or 'j' in electrical engineering) is not a paradox. 'i' is a mathematical convention to represent the square root of negative one. The algebra and calculus involving complex numbers (all numbers with either real or imaginary parts) have been logically defined so that 'complex math' and 'real math' are logically compatible. Using complex mathematics can be used to solve most of the integrals in the table in the back of your first year calculus book that you can't solve otherwise. Complex math is used in pretty much every type of science and here's the reason why it works: Any real quantity (mass, velocity, force, energy, etc) that one would want has to compute to a real answer, even if the math involves imaginary numbers. Examples of where complex math is used for real world problems: Fourier Transforms (all science and engineering use to analyze the frequency dependency of data), expressing any cyclical or wave-like data as a complex exponential (electrical signals, light, springs) makes computation easier, and complex numbers is fundamental in quantum mechanics - which much of modern technology utilizes. | |

You need to go and study group theory and measure theory to a degree level and come back. Arithmetic like that is not actually what maths is about. | |

I'm getting more of a "13 Year Old that doesn't know what he's doing vibe". | |

If you have 0/0=X and multiply both sides by 0, then you have to multiply all numbers meaning that you'd still have 0/0=0x. So basically, you went around in a circle dude. Plus, greater geniuses have thought of this before and disproved it. Nice try though all the same. | |

Oops. Double post. Delete this. | |

You completely fail at math, because you can't divide by 0. Now, time to blow minds. .333... + .666... = .999... (1/3)+(2/3) = (3/3) 3/3 = 1 .999... = 1 ^ Actually true | |

The OP doesn't understand what zero is. It's the null set. You cannot divide by it for a very good reason--there is no content to the set to form a divisor (ergo a/0 literally has no meaning). Long story short: OP, look up what zero means. | |

Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT |

This thread is locked