I've found out how to divide by zero, no joke

Dividing by decimals makes the number get bigger: 1 divided by 0.5 = 2

The lower decimal you divide by, the bigger the number gets: 1 divided by 0.1 = 10

1 divided by 0.00001 = 100 000

You could keep making the decimal smaller and the number would keep getting bigger, and you could keep making the decimal smaller forever. So therefore dividing by zero equals Infinity.

This just came to me today

Dividing by decimals makes the number get bigger: 1 divided by 0.5 = 2 The lower decimal you divide by, the bigger the number gets: 1 divided by 0.1 = 10 1 divided by 0.00001 = 100 000 You could keep making the decimal smaller and the number would keep getting bigger, and you could keep making the decimal smaller forever. So therefore dividing by zero equals Infinity. This just came to me todayAlacoque72

What you basically described is called evaluating a limit, this is learned if you take calculus. You will learn that if you evaluate a function like 1/x as x approaches zero it is infinity.

Limits are very useful.

Keep in mind though the limit is infinity, the actual value is still undefined.

so am I right?

so am I right?

Alacoque72

[QUOTE="Alacoque72"]

so am I right?

xaos

Dividing by decimals makes the number get bigger: 1 divided by 0.5 = 2

The lower decimal you divide by, the bigger the number gets: 1 divided by 0.1 = 10

1 divided by 0.00001 = 100 000

You could keep making the decimal smaller and the number would keep getting bigger, and you could keep making the decimal smaller forever.Alacoque72

So therefore dividing by zero equals Infinity.Alacoque72

[QUOTE="Alacoque72"]

so am I right?

xaos

why not?

Dividing by decimals makes the number get bigger: 1 divided by 0.5 = 2

The lower decimal you divide by, the bigger the number gets: 1 divided by 0.1 = 10

1 divided by 0.00001 = 100 000

You could keep making the decimal smaller and the number would keep getting bigger, and you could keep making the decimal smaller forever. So therefore dividing by zero equals Infinity.

This just came to me today

Alacoque72

No matter how small it is, even infinite, it's still not zero, no?

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Alacoque72"]

so am I right?

Alacoque72

why not?

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Alacoque72"]

so am I right?

Alacoque72

why not?

So therefore dividing by zero equals Infinity.Alacoque72

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Alacoque72"]

so am I right?

Alacoque72

why not?

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Alacoque72"]

so am I right?

Alacoque72

why not?

It gets closer and closer to infinity, but we cannot assign a value to infinity, therefore dividing by 0 has no value.

Because infinity is not a quantity.

Marfoo

[QUOTE="Marfoo"] Because infinity is not a quantity.

Famiking

Zero doesn't equal infinity, in fact zero is the complete opposite.

[QUOTE="Famiking"]

[QUOTE="Marfoo"] Because infinity is not a quantity.

Marfoo

u are reminding me wz the joke that says : once there was a scientist who decided to make something unexceptional, so he spent years and years searching and thinking, after years of years of hard work, he made a press confrenese to declare his new invention, he said " i have come up wz the idea that will change the face of earth, instead of using stones to creat fire, i have invented a LIGHTER"......... not very good joke but i guess u got the point,... anyway i hope u the best luck wz ur next idea.

Zero doesn't equal infinity, in fact zero is the complete opposite.

Tiefster

DIVIDING by zero equals infinity

[QUOTE="Tiefster"]

Zero doesn't equal infinity, in fact zero is the complete opposite.

Alacoque72

DIVIDING by zero equals infinity

So YOU'RE the one that's responsible for all these black holes and time rifts in my yard :evil:

I'm going to ask you nicely... Please stop dividing by zero!!! Don't make me get Steven Hawking :x

Dividing by decimals makes the number get bigger: 1 divided by 0.5 = 2

The lower decimal you divide by, the bigger the number gets: 1 divided by 0.1 = 10

1 divided by 0.00001 = 100 000

You could keep making the decimal smaller and the number would keep getting bigger, and you could keep making the decimal smaller forever. So therefore dividing by zero equals Infinity.

This just came to me today

Alacoque72

Actually, I beg to differ. Dividing by zero yields 1/2.

Look:

let f(x) = x and g(x) = 2x.

lim(f/g) (x->0) = lim(x/2x) (x->0) = lim(1/2) (x->0) = 1/2. (note that lim(f/g) (x->0) -> 0/0

[QUOTE="Alacoque72"]

Dividing by decimals makes the number get bigger: 1 divided by 0.5 = 2

The lower decimal you divide by, the bigger the number gets: 1 divided by 0.1 = 10

1 divided by 0.00001 = 100 000

You could keep making the decimal smaller and the number would keep getting bigger, and you could keep making the decimal smaller forever. So therefore dividing by zero equals Infinity.

This just came to me today

Actually, I beg to differ. Dividing by zero yields 1/2.

Look:

let f(x) = x and g(x) = 2x.

lim(f/g) (x->0) = lim(x/2x) (x->0) = lim(1/2) (x->0) = 1/2.

[QUOTE="Tiefster"]

Zero doesn't equal infinity, in fact zero is the complete opposite.

Alacoque72

DIVIDING by zero equals infinity

This reminds me of a crazy idea I had a while back: what if the set of integers is actually a gigantic circle as opposed to a line, such that negative infinity and positive infinity are the same thing? Then you wouldn't have an infinite discontinuity in the function f(x) = 1/x at all; rather, it just wraps around and carries on.

I wish I could say I was stoned when I came up with this idea, but I have no such excuse.

This reminds me of a crazy idea I had a while back: what if the set of integers is actually a gigantic circle as opposed to a line, such that negative infinity and positive infinity are the same thing? Then you wouldn't have an infinite discontinuity in the function f(x) = 1/x at all; rather, it just wraps around and carries on.

I wish I could say I was stoned when I came up with this idea, but I have no such excuse.

GabuEx

Although, sometimes you can get a value when you divide by zero, in the case the function is 0/0 or infinity/0.

This reminds me of a crazy idea I had a while back: what if the set of integers is actually a gigantic circle as opposed to a line, such that negative infinity and positive infinity are the same thing? Then you wouldn't have an infinite discontinuity in the function f(x) = 1/x at all; rather, it just wraps around and carries on.

I wish I could say I was stoned when I came up with this idea, but I have no such excuse.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

This reminds me of a crazy idea I had a while back: what if the set of integers is actually a gigantic circle as opposed to a line, such that negative infinity and positive infinity are the same thing? Then you wouldn't have an infinite discontinuity in the function f(x) = 1/x at all; rather, it just wraps around and carries on.

I wish I could say I was stoned when I came up with this idea, but I have no such excuse.

Dante2710

Not really - here's the crazy thought I had in my head. This is what the current visualization of the function f(x) = 1/x:

With this new way of visualizing it, it would instead look like this:

(minus the absolutely terrible graphic skills)

And yes, I know that infinity is not a number, such that you can't really have coordinates of (infinity, infinity)... but still, I thought it was kind of an interesting idea.

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

This reminds me of a crazy idea I had a while back: what if the set of integers is actually a gigantic circle as opposed to a line, such that negative infinity and positive infinity are the same thing? Then you wouldn't have an infinite discontinuity in the function f(x) = 1/x at all; rather, it just wraps around and carries on.

I wish I could say I was stoned when I came up with this idea, but I have no such excuse.

Not really - here's the crazy thought I had in my head. This is what the current visualization of the function f(x) = 1/x:

With this new way of visualizing it, it would instead look like this:

(minus the absolutely terrible graphic skills)

And yes, I know that infinity is not a number, such that you can't really have coordinates of (infinity, infinity)... but still, I thought it was kind of an interesting idea.

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

This reminds me of a crazy idea I had a while back: what if the set of integers is actually a gigantic circle as opposed to a line, such that negative infinity and positive infinity are the same thing? Then you wouldn't have an infinite discontinuity in the function f(x) = 1/x at all; rather, it just wraps around and carries on.

I wish I could say I was stoned when I came up with this idea, but I have no such excuse.

GabuEx

Not really - here's the crazy thought I had in my head. This is what the current visualization of the function f(x) = 1/x:

With this new way of visualizing it, it would instead look like this:

(minus the absolutely terrible graphic skills)

And yes, I know that infinity is not a number, such that you can't really have coordinates of (infinity, infinity)... but still, I thought it was kind of an interesting idea.

Reminds me of my idea that integration and differentiation aren't step functions that you apply to the equation, but can actaully have the "holes" between levels of differentiation filled in.

Still haven't figured out how to do that yet, though, but if I ever do, I'll probably get the Nobel Prize for mathematics.*

*"But thepwninator! There IS no Nobel Prize for mathematics!"
"The discovery would be so grand that it would cause them to make one."

That is one sweet graph, I had that idea once, but, there is no evidence to support it besides a graphical interpretation of what could be. I think the idea makes sense because it is visually convenient. However it doesn't make sense that such a relationship would occur. kudos on the paint skills.Marfoo

Oh, I know there's no evidence. But the whole "infinite discontinuity" thing always bothered me. I think that's what led to the idea - it makes the graph of f(x) = 1/x all of a sudden nice and continuous. And that makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. :P

...Oh, God, I'm so lonely. :cry:

thats not possible, otherwise there would be a set where both negative infinite and positive infinite would intersect at. Dante2710

What do you mean it's not possible!? No groundbreaking discovery was ever made by thinking within the box! >_>

:P

Lol, it just takes an infinite amount of positive integers before they intersect with negative ones and vice versa! :lol:

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]thats not possible, otherwise there would be a set where both negative infinite and positive infinite would intersect at. GabuEx

What do you mean it's not possible!? No groundbreaking discovery was ever made by thinking within the box! >_>

:P

Edit: i should ask my teacher what he thinks about this, he has done alot of research dealing with 0 :P

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]thats not possible, otherwise there would be a set where both negative infinite and positive infinite would intersect at. Dante2710

What do you mean it's not possible!? No groundbreaking discovery was ever made by thinking within the box! >_>

:P

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!!! :lol:Marfoo

Reminds me of my idea that integration and differentiation aren't step functions that you apply to the equation, but can actaully have the "holes" between levels of differentiation filled in.

Still haven't figured out how to do that yet, though, but if I ever do, I'll probably get the Nobel Prize for mathematics.*

*"But thepwninator! There IS no Nobel Prize for mathematics!"
"The discovery would be so grand that it would cause them to make one."

thepwninator

Hmm, well, the derivatives of f(x) = x^n are:

f^(1) (x) = n x^(n - 1)

f^(2) (x) = n (n - 1) x^(n - 2)

and in general

f^(m) (x) = (n! / (n - m)!) x^(n - m)

But we know that the factorial function can be expanded to the real numbers through the Gamma function:

Γ(n + 1) = n!

so

f^(m) (x) = (Γ(n + 1) / Γ(n - m + 1)) x^(n - m)

So for n = 5, m = 1.5,

f^(1.5) (x) = (Γ(6) / Γ(4.5)) x^3.5

f^(1.5) (x) = 10.32 x^3.5

BAM, continuous differentiation! :D

0 will always be an asymptote for 1/x, even if you were to graph is using a 3D plane neither positive or negative infinity will ever meet :P but nothing wrong with questioning whats already established :lol:

Dante2710

You don't know that; have you ever been to positive and negative infinity to make sure that they don't meet!? :P

[QUOTE="Dante2710"]

0 will always be an asymptote for 1/x, even if you were to graph is using a 3D plane neither positive or negative infinity will ever meet :P but nothing wrong with questioning whats already established :lol:

GabuEx

You don't know that; have you ever been to positive and negative infinity to make sure that they don't meet!? :P