• Doctor xNo@r.nf
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Anything /0 is considered impossible as an agreement. There’s no actual math involved in that answer. In reality you can divide by 0, but the answer has no natural number.

    How many times can you add 0 before you get 1? The answer actually is the drunk(😅) 8 or ‘infinite’, but our minds can’t grasp the very existence of infinite, so we just went with ‘impossible’.

    There are ways to circumvent that added concept of some calculators when dividing by 0 anyway and it will show you “Infinite” if it is able to. I remember you could do this in C+ even, but not 100% sure anymore how. I think it was with dividing by an ever decreasing number-variable. When it reaches 0 just before the calculation, C+ didn’t default to an error, but just said ‘Infinite’. But like I said, not 100% sure anymore if that was the actual way.

    If your counter against that is that 0 will never become 1 no matter how many you add, then that just proves ‘infinite’ correct. If it ever could, it wouldn’t be infinite…

    Sooo, this guy is smart, but also wrong in his calculation here. 😅

    Edit: Anyway, voting me down doesn’t change the inconvenient truth above. 😅

    • Ferris@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      the limit of y in 1/x=y as x approaches 0 from negative one is negative infinity. the limit as x approaches 0 from positive one is positive infinity. 1/0 is simultaneously both positive and negative infinity and is paradoxical.

      • Doctor xNo@r.nf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        One could argue that negative and possitive infinity, unlike natural numbers, boils down to the same thing, though. Just like 0, infinity technically has no + or -.

        • MacGuffin94@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t think of infinity as a value. It’s more of a concept to explain numerical behavior. What you described would be like running north at 5 mph south. The limit diverge do it does not exist.

          • Doctor xNo@r.nf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But it is a value. Just one we tend to avoid by claiming it doesn’t exist or is impossible… Our minds just have a hard time imagining it, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

            • 0ops@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Our minds? Infinity isn’t something we don’t understand - we invented the concept of infinity. The mathematics community agreed on its definition, which includes the fact that infinity is not a real number, it literally does not exist. Show me infinity, I’ll give you infinity+1.

              You deciding that infinity means something else is not a math problem but a language problem, so if being right about this is that important to you, start a petition or something

              • Doctor xNo@r.nf
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                So you believe the universe just ends somewhere with nothing behind it?

                • 0ops@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What’s that got to do with anything? Infinity is just shorthand for “ever-increasing number”.

          • Doctor xNo@r.nf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d only break argumentative math, not actual calculatable math…

            Unlike many always say, math has too many agreements and ‘definitions’ and things we added to be universal. On a universal level infinite solves the +/- by the fact it’s infinite…

            • 0ops@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It breaks calculus, the math that made your phone and has a billion other uses. Directionality of infinities is critical. In calculus, infinity refers only to the magnitude of the resulting vector. Because I suspect you don’t know, integers are a 1-dimensional vector.

                • 0ops@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No but some of the values/specs were calculated by summing an infinite number of infinitely small values. Take a calculus class brother, it’s a cool subject if you’re interested in infinity

                  • Doctor xNo@r.nf
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I kinda already did many, though. Do you honestly think I argue math from my own imagination? Not sure I can do that while remaining logical ánd finding exactly the same info online if I look it up, cause that would be kinda amazing.

                • magic_lobster_party@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Quora has many dubious answers. I wouldn’t use it for any point of argument.

                  Infinity is not a number. It’s a concept. You’ll find yourself in many paradoxes if you start treating infinity as a number (you can easily prove that 1 = 2 for example).

                  By your argument, is 1/|x| negative infinity when x is 0? The expression is strictly positive, so it doesn’t make sense to assign it a negative value. But your version of infinity would make it both positive and negative.

                  Another one: try to plot y = (x^2 - 1) * 1/(x - 1). What happens to y when x approaches 1? If you look at a plot, you’ll see that y actually approaches 2. What would happen if we treat 1/(1-1) as your version of infinity? Should we consider that y could also approach -2, even if it doesn’t make any sense in this context?

                  • Doctor xNo@r.nf
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Curious I found something that proofs my whole point exactly to the letter though… I must be exactly the same kind of wrong as that other person that actually drew you the circle with it as proof…

                    C’mon, now you’re just reaching.

    • 0ops@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If your counter against that is that 0 will never become 1 no matter how many you add, then that just proves ‘infinite’ correct. If it ever could, it wouldn’t be infinite…

      You’re confusing infinity for unreal numbers. Infinity and negative infinity are not real numbers, but not all unreal numbers are infinity or negative infinity.

      If you’re strictly adding zeros, then adding infinite zeros nets you zero. If adding zero once didn’t change the result, then adding it infinite times won’t either. If you need to add enough zeros to get to 1, that number doesn’t exist - but that doesn’t mean that it’s infinity, it means that there’s no solution. Infinity is a placeholder for “larger a real number than you can imagine”, but when you multiply that by zero, the magnitude of infinity is a moot point because you have zero infinities.

      In calculus if you’re curious, you’re usually not strictly adding zero itself like above but instead adding values that approach zero. In that case, 0*infinity really “a very small number times a really big number”, and that is called an “indeterminate form”. In that case you may try rearranging it to solve

      • Doctor xNo@r.nf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You say it yourself. If you keep adding infinite zeros you will never get 1, hence the ‘divided by 0’ part.

        Also, 0 is technically not a number either, it’s the concept of the absence of one. You can’t count 0 things. That doesn’t mean we don’t use it, though. It’s just less hard to imagine and closer to our basic calculations than infinity is.

        • 0ops@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Zero is a real number, but not a natural number. I’m not going to explain the difference because, dude, this is junior high math

          • Doctor xNo@r.nf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Indeed, and infinite isn’t… It’s like comparing Newton and Einstein on a regular earth scale.

    • Akrenion@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We do have a concept of limits in math. That doesn’t mean we ignore it. It is just more correct not to divide by zero as the limits from either side do not converge. Or would you allow -inf as an answer aswell? That is the answer if we approach the limit from the other side.

      It is not only convenience but rigor that dictates dividing by 0 to be an erroneus assumption.

      • Doctor xNo@r.nf
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Infinite, just like 0, actually has no - or +. So yes and no. For all intents and purposes -inf == inf.

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You mean this one?

              The projectively extended real number line is distinct from the affinely extended real number line, in which +∞ and −∞ are distinct.

              Now tell me, do we usually work with the projectively extended real numbers?

        • 0ops@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          One positive infinity doesn’t even necessarily equal another positive infinity, as two expressions might not approach infinity at the same rate. Note the word “approach”. That’s the only way you’re allowed to use infinity/-infinity, by approaching it. It’s not a real number, it doesn’t actually exist. Second, in most contexts (calculus) it strictly refers to magnitude (ie, it can have directionality applied to it). Take a calculus class if you want to learn more.

      • addie@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Division is defined as the inverse of multiplication. The answer to one divided by zero is the same as asking which number you would multiply by zero in order to get one. No number has that property, not even infinity. So the answer is undefined.

        One divided by ‘epsilon’, where epsilon represents a very tiny number, approaches infinity for ever tinier epsilons, so in some maths contexts infinity makes sense. But in general it’s a meaningless question, and so can only have a meaningless answer.