This IS a TEST; Do you know the ACTUAL reason division by zero is not permitted?
Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
scherado wrote:ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
We've got someone who thinks he knows, but....does he???? We may never know...
scherado wrote:I don't pretend to be a teacher.
BlackBart wrote:Dividing a number by zero is the same as not dividing it by anything therefore...
A/0 = A
A/1 also equals A
Therefore 1 is equal to 0
Take that atheists!!
Thommo wrote:Posted within the last hour:scherado wrote:I don't pretend to be a teacher.
Anyway, the real numbers are defined to be a field (the unique complete Archimedean field), which requires that under addition and multiplication they are closed, associative, have inverses and have a null element wherever those operations are defined. Division by zero does not have an inverse and cannot sensibly be given one (on that set and structure) and thus is not defined on that field.
No, this is not how it is explained in grade school.
Anyway, you can learn lots about this at this perfectly acceptable and excellent link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
scherado wrote:Thommo wrote:Posted within the last hour:scherado wrote:I don't pretend to be a teacher.
Anyway, the real numbers are defined to be a field (the unique complete Archimedean field), which requires that under addition and multiplication they are closed, associative, have inverses and have a null element wherever those operations are defined. Division by zero does not have an inverse and cannot sensibly be given one (on that set and structure) and thus is not defined on that field.
No, this is not how it is explained in grade school.
Anyway, you can learn lots about this at this perfectly acceptable and excellent link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
Nope, no Whiiikee-peee-D-uh references.
scherado wrote:Come on! Don't you think you've got the cart before the horse with: Division by zero does not have an inverse and cannot sensibly be given one.
scherado wrote:All-righty then. This thread will separate the "men from the boys," this expression having been created, I suppose, when women were second-class citizens; but that's water under the bridge and not the topic.
Matt_B wrote:You're getting it all wrong. This has to be answered entirely with conservative rhetoric:
1. It's political correctness gone mad.
2. It's against first amendment rights.
3. It says so in the Bible, right there next to the bit where Pi is defined as 3.
4. It'd send the budget deficit up towards infinity, if you could.
5. It says Error on my calculator just to hide the Truth.
6. Make mathematics great again.
Thommo wrote:..The clause should read "Multiplication by zero does not have an inverse and cannot sensibly be given one".
Classic definition
Formally, a field is a set F together with two operations called addition and multiplication.[1] An operation is a mapping that associates an element of the set to every pair of its elements. The result of the addition of a and b is called the sum of a and b and denoted a + b. Similarly, the result of the multiplication of a and b is called the product of a and b, and denoted ab or a⋅b. These operations are required to satisfy the following properties, referred to as field axioms. In the following definitions, a, b and c are arbitrary elements of the field F.
Associativity of addition and multiplication: a + (b + c) = (a + b) + c and a · (b · c) = (a · b) · c.
Commutativity of addition and multiplication: a + b = b + a and a · b = b · a.
Additive and multiplicative identity: there exist two different elements 0 and 1 in F such that a + 0 = a and a · 1 = a.
Additive inverses: for every a in F, there exists an element in F, denoted −a, called additive inverse of a, such that a + (−a) = 0.
Multiplicative inverses: for every a ≠ 0 in F, there exists an element in F, denoted by a−1, 1/a, or 1/a, called the multiplicative inverse of a, such that a · a−1 = 1.
Distributivity of multiplication over addition: a · (b + c) = (a · b) + (a · c).
This may be summarized by saying: a field has two operations, called addition and multiplication; it is an abelian group under the addition, with 0 as additive identity; the nonzero elements are an abelian group under the multiplication, with 1 as multiplicative identity; the multiplication is distributive over the addition.
scherado wrote:Matt_B wrote:You're getting it all wrong. This has to be answered entirely with conservative rhetoric:
1. It's political correctness gone mad.
2. It's against first amendment rights.
3. It says so in the Bible, right there next to the bit where Pi is defined as 3.
4. It'd send the budget deficit up towards infinity, if you could.
5. It says Error on my calculator just to hide the Truth.
6. Make mathematics great again.
Matt...unhinged.
scherado wrote:If you do a search for the answer, then you provide your reference and it can't be wookee-peee-D-uh.
Cito di Pense wrote:
For your next trick, I suggest complaining about how .9999... is not 1 in the set of real numbers.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest