1. ## division by zero

deleted deleted

2. ## Re: division by zero

Originally Posted by 7777777
In the thread about 0.999......it was possible to prove that the flawed mainstream definition of derivative means that it is possible to calculate values of 0/0, for example 0/0 can be equal to 1:

let and calculate its derivative at x=1/2

and we are able to get the result 1=2:

We can arrive even at more "magical" results using 0/0= 1:

multiply by 0/0

divide by 0

which is

because

Who would want to lose this "magic"?
They will tell you: .

Don't let anyone dare tell you that's incorrect, because it is the same as .

It's really very much like the idiot mythmatics professor (David Ullrich) that tries to debate me on sci.myth. The limit in the case of is actually irrelevant, because sin(x) / x is defined at x=0, just as x/x is defined at x=0. Don't believe me? Just draw the graph of y=1 and you'll see that (0,1) is on the graph. Mainstream morons fancy there is a hole at x=0 where sin(x) / x is concerned. Chuckle.

3. ## Re: division by zero

deleted deleted

4. ## Re: division by zero

Originally Posted by 7777777

Let x=0, we get

We díd it again, 0/0 = 1. " Magic" is never ending.
Mistake not "magic". Swapping a constant x=0 then saying "as x approaches 0" . X doesn't "approach" 0 when you establish it as a constant. That's as wrong as Cantor and grapes' mistake mistake of saying

let x=.999...

x=1
solve for x.

You don't solve for x when it is a constant. You evaluate the equation.
when you let x=.999...
then you evaluate
x=1 as false.
Same as

let x=5

x=1 evaluates to false.

5. ## Re: division by zero

deleted deleted

6. ## Re: division by zero

This is the Maths sub forum so it should not surprise me to see maths..
~ but as we are also a 'spacetimeandtheuniverse' which would seem to make a implication of science valued revue..
Yet repeatedly I see some things we just know to be wrong..

I brush the equations of mathematics aside because it would seem that those who write them have long since lost the reason for there existence..
' Mathematics are/is, the tool for the solving and understanding of problems.' That conclusions of clarity can be served or found.

So to this bit of nonsense I remind you and demonstrate that; If I divide by zero I have effectively divided by nothing..
It's only when you say the words can you 'see' just how clear this ridiculous argument becomes..

One divided by nothing, is nothing.. You have not divided what does not exist. Nothing has a value of zero. It can not be smaller or divided.
and that I am witnessing a bunch of self righteous bafoons who it would seem want to argue black is white.. Nothing is something..
That it becomes a argument of words not meanings.. and that some of you want to have the last word..
That having the last word is as easy as;" You may well be right, but I am not seeing your argument at all.
You have failed to demonstrate your point in a way I understand. Have you missed your medication ? I will get the nurse.."

7. ## Re: division by zero

deleted deleted

8. ## Re: division by zero

Originally Posted by 7777777
I have demonstrated the mainstream flawed definition of the derivative. As I told already, it is possible to calculate the values of 0/0 using the mainstream flawed logic. Also it is possible to calculate the limit of 0/0.

The flawed mainstream definition of limits says that

using the same flawed logic

therefore

See, this goes all the way back to the definition of number. Is 0 really a number? If it is a number, then one should be able to partition it or measure it using other numbers. The fact remains: there is no number that can measure 0 besides 0. Now, the idea of unit arises from the comparison of any number with itself, or the measurement of any number with itself. If we say 0:0 where : means compared with, then the result is equal. So no matter what is x in x:x, the result is always equal. Mythmaticians have misinterpreted what it means to write m/n. It can have many meanings. If m/n is a number, then it does not mean m divided by n. The number is complete. No division is necessary. This is especially the case when m < n. However, when m > n, it gets a little more complicated.

I think I know how you are thinking. Lim S = S implies 0/0 = 1. It's ridiculous for mainstreamers to think the way they do. But we know that 0/0 is nonsense, except perhaps in its most primitive form, that is, 0:0 where one thinks first in terms of magnitudes, and 0 magnitude means there is no magnitude, so what is the measure of 0 then? Well, there is no measure of 0 by any other magnitude. This is why the Greeks did not consider 0 to be a number. Of course they thought of it! They rejected it as a number. How does one reify 0? See, the ancient Greeks based their knowledge on Platonic ideas. According to Plato, only those ideas that are well formed, are real. One can argue that 0 is real if nothing exists. But can nothing truly exist? Of course not. Ideas have always existed. 0 is an idea. And so we arrive at a contradiction because we started off by saying 0 cannot be reified, but now it is, as an idea. So how do we explain this? Can we say that 0 is the idea which cannot be reified? If we do, then it is no longer real. In other words, 0 is not a well-formed idea because its boundaries or limits are indiscernible. Only those ideas which are well-formed, can thus be reified and are consequently qualified as real.

Mathematics can be done without 0 quite easily. However, I think that 0 is useful in the hands of skilled mathematicians (like myself). In the hands of fools (almost every one else), it can lead to very wrong conclusions, and it often does. As you can see, a rigorous calculus did not exist before my New Calculus. A lot of misconceptions contributed to the broken mainstream calculus. I think it's fair to say that 0 played a part. It's characteristic of what most mythmaticians have between their ears.

During my insomnia, I often try to imagine life emerging from inanimate ideas. It's quite absurd I know, but intriguing nonetheless. Some times I get lucky and I pass out from sheer exhaustion. The reason I do this is that I cannot perceive of an animate intelligence with the attribute of perpetual existence either in the past or future. Chuckle. But my inferiors can!

9. ## Re: division by zero

Some call it a fallacy:

Division by zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Derivative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of particular interest; 1.1.2 (Rigorous definition)

OMG, the derivative is an approximation!!!
Whatever are we to do?

I know, we'll distribute the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_(mathematics)

Hey, who am I to argue?

(I now am turning my attention to quantifying the number of standing angels relative to the size of the mental size of the pinheads thinking about them (of course, I am not included in that set) ....

10. ## Re: division by zero

Originally Posted by BuleriaChk
Some call it a fallacy:

Division by zero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Derivative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of particular interest; 1.1.2 (Rigorous definition)

OMG, the derivative is an approximation!!!
Whatever are we to do?

Hey, who am I to argue?

(I now am turning my attention to quantifying the number of standing angels relative to the size of the mental size of the pinheads thinking about them ....

"Passing from an approximation to an exact answer is done using a limit."

Nope. Getting an exact answer and a rigorous definition is done using the New Calculus. Chuckle.

Passing from an approximation to an "exact" answer is like passing gas, and done using the limit. Only problem is that one has to know the limit, which is the answer before the answer.

Page 1 of 12 12311 ... Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•