• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

So really, what is 0/0?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: SunSamurai
So you guys do not understand it therefor it doesn't make sense. Got it :roll:

PS plane on a treadmill thread is retarded. Did you see the Myth Busters episode? Total sham.
PSS Girls are evil:http://blogs.orlandosentinel.c...08/26/girlsareevil.jpg

I have a pretty decent understanding of mathematics, but maybe you should clarify your earlier post because I really didn't understand what you were trying to say. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm genuinely interested.

From what I can glean, he rejects fractions on philosophical grounds because he will only accept mathematics that he can relate to in tangible objects. He sees that all "things" exist as discrete entities. Even if they get cut in half, then the halves exist as discrete, singular entities. Then throws in something about quarks (misspelled) to try to seem authoritative by appealing to scientific authority.

edit:
He is taking quantization to an absurd extreme.
 
Originally posted by: Itchrelief
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: SunSamurai
So you guys do not understand it therefor it doesn't make sense. Got it :roll:

PS plane on a treadmill thread is retarded. Did you see the Myth Busters episode? Total sham.
PSS Girls are evil:http://blogs.orlandosentinel.c...08/26/girlsareevil.jpg

I have a pretty decent understanding of mathematics, but maybe you should clarify your earlier post because I really didn't understand what you were trying to say. I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm genuinely interested.

From what I can glean, he rejects fractions on philosophical grounds because he will only accept mathematics that he can relate to in tangible objects. He sees that all "things" exist as discrete entities. Even if they get cut in half, then the halves exist as discrete, singular entities. Then throws in something about quarks (misspelled) to try to seem authoritative by appealing to scientific authority.

edit:
He is taking quantization to an absurd extreme.

Hehe amusing considering the quark has 1/2 integer spin values :laugh:
 
You cannot divide nothing into smaller pieces of nothing. Numbers are just representations of quantification, they don't have special rules outside of reality in which you can divide zero "insert thing/stuff" by zero.

You do not get a result because you cannot begin the equation.
 
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: eLiu
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Dari
EDIT: I'd also like to know the difference between 'indeterminate' and 'undefined'.
What is the value of 0/0? (Is it really undefined or are there an infinite number of values?)

There's a special word for stuff like this, where you could conceivably give it any number of values. That word is "indeterminate." It's not the same as undefined. It essentially means that if it pops up somewhere, you don't know what its value will be in your case. For instance, if you have the limit as x->0 of x/x and of 7x/x, the expression will have a value of 1 in the first case and 7 in the second case. Indeterminate.

- Dr. Robert

Link.

0 / 0 is defined. It is just that its value depends on the problem. Thus, we can't determine the value until we know the problem. We call it "indeterminate". If we used "undefined", it would mean that there will be an answer if the world has an agreement as to what the answer should be, but until then, there is no defined agreement.

OK then can you cite different values for different problems? I'm not talking about the limit to zero, which is easy.

Consider:
lim as x->0: (a*x)/x
What does that equal? a (formally justified by L'Hopital's rule)

Ok now plug in 0... 0/0 = a. i can pick any -infinity < a < infinity and I have a true statement.
To get the infinity in there...
lim as x->0: (a*x)/x^2
This limit goes to infinity for any nonzero value of a.

There you go, examples of 0/0 = any real number and 0/0 = infinity.

P.S. I just know somebody is going to be a smartass and post that a*x/x = a and there's no division by 0. So I'll head those folk off at the pass:
lim as x->0: a*(2*sin(x)-sin(3*x))/(x-sin(x))
This is again, 0/0. Using L'Hopital some more, this evalulates to 25a. So 0/0 = 25*a = anything between -inf and +inf.

To make it go to infinity, replace the denominator by (x-sin(x))^2.

You're talking about the limit of a function. The question had nothing to do with either functions or limits.

The question has everything to do with both limits and functions. 0/0 doesn't have any meaning by itself; there needs to be some kind of context for how the numerator reached 0 and how the denominator reached 0. The only way to treat that question mathematically is to apply the [proven] formalism available to us: calculus. Try anything else and you end up with hand-wavey (and wrong) arguments like 1/3 = 0.333... 2/3 = 0.6666... 3/3 = 0.99999...

Note that for problems of "a/b" where a ~=0, b ~= 0, the context doesn't matter b/c the answer will be the same regardless.
 
Originally posted by: SunnyD
We all know the rules... "0" doesn't count in any of those rules. But it HAS to count somehow, it can't just not.

So what it be? Is it 1, 0 or undefined?

It is simultaneously 0,1 and infinity.
 
A long time ago in a Math course far, far away, we were told that by convention and definition, mathematicians had decided to say that 0/0 = 1. There is no logical argument to establish the value, so agreement and convention is the only way to settle the question.
 
Back
Top