Dividing by zero

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby The Golden Turd » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:43 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Turd Ferguson wrote:Not if the whole is Dyad Ecamndu. Are you doing the recount for Jill Stein Ecmandu? You including new votes in there count?


Prove that a whole meta concept such a dyad can only be dyad and not triad as well.

We can easily abstract "group". (Monad) as anything we want!


You present a false challenge, as Dyad would also be One via two monads as well, so doesn't possess exclusivity in being stated as a potential whole, which is exactly my point, it is potentiality we are discussing.

Two can be specified as all, such as the Matter-Antimatter universe, without conception of a third intrinsically necessary for total wholeness. An Egg and a Ovary can be whole.

Two, Dyad, is a serialization of One, Monad, a further specification upon Monism, with characteristic.

If I make a statement Horse, it is by default Dyad at least, but you can't prove it is Triad without syllogistic examination. Is it a "white horse" as a further possibility isn't under consideration, as the sibject-object consideration isn't under consideration, it may be albino, or in the dark, viewed in ultraviolet, or the "observer" may be blind, studying it via tactile senses. We are only certain of Dyad, not Triad.

This is the basic underlining of syllogism, all syllogistic structures must follow, and so is built into every proof, and therefore cannot be disptiven, as it is part and parcel to every proof. What is not part and parcel is your own flight of fancy regarding Triadism. It can be, but isn't ever assertain. Is one ever certain if The Son, The Son, and the Spirit as same qualities experienced at any given time, or are they experienced in degrees separately? Are we engaging the Subject-Object sceptism in rationalization that differently experienced parts are a holistic whole? How can we ever be certain, given human fallacy? I hold to the trinitarian creed but am also a Doubting Thomas in all things.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:45 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
31 / 0 = nonsense [ something into nothing cannot go ]

0 / 31 = infinity [ nothing into something can go ]

31 divided no times is still 31

31 not being divided at all is not 31 being divided by 0

31 = 31 [ not being divided at all ] but 31 / 0 = nonsense


It's 31 divided zero times!!!

Damn you people are nuts, seriously...

You go to school, learn how to parrot something, and don't even think about what you're saying
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:51 am

That's the Greek philosopher coming out in you Turd!

The point is, I can say a group (monad) of 6 hens is in my yard...

Those Greeks were really superstitious !

What's to say there's no super matter or super antimatter or neutral matter... Nothing, yet you bloviate the Greeks ...
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby The Golden Turd » Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:55 am

It's not what's to say, but saying it dear Watson, that is the differential presumption that gives rise to Dyad. Dyad isn't mnemonic. It is a condition for categorical differation, of saying "to know more, one must Orient and Observe further".

I accept your admittance to defeat. I now kind myself as the king of all Mathematics.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby surreptitious57 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:11 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Its 31 divided zero times

Once more time : 31 / 0 = nonsense
No point arguing this ad infinitum
So shall have to agree to disagree
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby The Golden Turd » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:24 am

Nonsense is still something, a state of incoherent being, chaos of the thing in itself.

It is a state if being, a prerequisite of "Thingness", of myriad calculation, and so isn't without part in the serialization of things, however real or abstract they are in formulaic thought.

As even Phyllo's minimalistic syllogism shows, something more than nothing is left over. Is it "1" is incorrect, but so is any decimalization, as being has no quanta to be serialized.

One must either abandon Being and Becoming, as well as Past, Present, and Future, to get around this issue- which would be highly traumatic to modern number theory, or embrace a aspect on numbers exist on the De Dicto and De Re expanse, imbedded in syllogistic expression of formulaic expression, that goes very much counter to modern presumptions on the nature of Zero, as it is found not to behave as we always believed prior to how it was supposed to "be".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_dicto_and_de_re
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:46 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:
Its 31 divided zero times

Once more time : 31 / 0 = nonsense
No point arguing this ad infinitum
So shall have to agree to disagree


You're arguing without content.

My content is referential to the previous phrase in my argument.

I hardly call that a defeat.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:56 am

Turd Ferguson wrote:It's not what's to say, but saying it dear Watson, that is the differential presumption that gives rise to Dyad. Dyad isn't mnemonic. It is a condition for categorical differation, of saying "to know more, one must Orient and Observe further".

I accept your admittance to defeat. I now kind myself as the king of all Mathematics.


I see this as a joke post...

You're a trinity freak who's skeptical...

Obviously you know neutral as a concept, which makes positive and negative a trinity.

What I've found about life besides binary is that some areas are trinity, binary and some are more.

Again I can see your ancient readings in your posts
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:15 am

Ecmandu wrote:
Turd Ferguson wrote:It's not what's to say, but saying it dear Watson, that is the differential presumption that gives rise to Dyad. Dyad isn't mnemonic. It is a condition for categorical differation, of saying "to know more, one must Orient and Observe further".

I accept your admittance to defeat. I now kind myself as the king of all Mathematics.


I see this as a joke post...

You're a trinity freak who's skeptical...

Obviously you know neutral as a concept, which makes positive and negative a trinity.

What I've found about life besides binary is that some areas are trinity, binary and some are more.

Again I can see your ancient readings in your posts


You and I both well know the ancients didn't see 1 & 2 as numbers... There was a deep equivalency !

How many stages of grief are there for death???

More than 1, 2, or 3!!!

How many plot lines are there to stories???

12

So why are we wasting our time talking about this??

Answer me that.

What you don't know...

I've read a great many classics.

I know the same shit you do.

My "job" is to be accurate... Regurgitation is a hinderence to contribution
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby The Golden Turd » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:49 am

Perhaps we both read them, but between us, only I understood them.

One irrespective isn't a number, but it is a component of metrics under Dyad. 1 & 2 are metrics. 3 is a number, but it is also serialized, and dependent upon 1 and 2 which are likewise serialized, in fact, a reason 3 is a number, serialized,us because of the proceeding metricfication that goes on to infinity. Being is inherent in Two and Three, and in less than One, as well as Infinity, despite infinity being nonesensical save for when it is axoimatically particular.

Paradox is the root of all knowledge, every idea is reducible to this.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby The Golden Turd » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:52 am

Image

Look, it is me having a Roman styled Triumph on your ass Ecmandu, Biatch!
Last edited by The Golden Turd on Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby phyllo » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:54 am

If you divide something by 1... You simply (aside from the concept of equality) split into two pieces...
2 pieces??
Do you want to think about that some more?
You guys interpret dividing something by 1 as dividing it by itself, however 31 pieces of 31 is not the same as 31!!
You're getting confused because you want to visualize division as some kind of physical process. That makes sense for some numbers but not for the majority of numbers. That does it mean to divide 31 by pi (3.14) in terms of pieces? Or dividing 31 by one quarter (1/4) in terms of pieces? Dividing by zero is even more "physically" nonsensical.
"Who loves not wine, woman and song, remains a fool his whole life long."

"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10110
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: ->.

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:02 am

phyllo wrote:
If you divide something by 1... You simply (aside from the concept of equality) split into two pieces...
2 pieces??
Do you want to think about that some more?
You guys interpret dividing something by 1 as dividing it by itself, however 31 pieces of 31 is not the same as 31!!
You're getting confused because you want to visualize division as some kind of physical process. That makes sense for some numbers but not for the majority of numbers. That does it mean to divide 31 by pi (3.14) in terms of pieces? Or dividing 31 by one quarter (1/4) in terms of pieces? Dividing by zero is even more "physically" nonsensical.


Precisely because it is physically nonsensical is the reason it has the properties I stated well in subsequent posts.

Zero must have a quantity to be undefined, contradiction.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby The Golden Turd » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:16 am

Zero has quality, and serialization, it is linear. A void still takes a shape.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby phyllo » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:32 am

Precisely because it is physically nonsensical is the reason it has the properties I stated well in subsequent posts.
Mathematics does not need to have physical meaning. It's essentially symbol manipulation using very well defined rules. Sometimes it's possible to overlay the symbols on top of a physical reality and make calculations which have a physical meaning. And sometimes it's not possible. In both cases, the mathematical rules work the same way.

The consequence of your interpretation of division by zero is that 31/0=31 and 31/1=31 which means that 1 is mathematically the same as 0. And if that is true, then 1+1=2 but also 0+1=2 and 0+0=2 and 10=11 and 31=30, etc.

IOW, all mathematics breaks down and becomes nonsense.
"Who loves not wine, woman and song, remains a fool his whole life long."

"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10110
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: ->.

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby James S Saint » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:04 am

Ecmandu wrote:It's 31 divided zero times!!!

Damn you people are nuts, seriously...

You can claim that if you want to invent your own notation, but I wouldn't count on anyone but you using it. For the rest of the world, the notation means whatever THEY defined it to mean, not you. And THEY do not use "31/0" to mean "31 divided zero times".

Their notation defines multiplication and division as inverse operations. Thus if a/b = c, then c * b = a by DECLARED DEFINITION of the notation. So in their notation, you are claiming that 31 * 0 = 31.

If you want to read it upside down and backwards, go ahead.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25782
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby The Golden Turd » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:24 am

IOW, all mathematics breaks down and becomes nonsense.


Quite the opposite, the drive to "pure mathematics" has shown quite the opposite, that mathematical systems are relative and explainable by and through one another.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_mathematics

You can claim that if you want to invent your own notation, but I wouldn't count on anyone but you using it. For the rest of the world, the notation means whatever THEY defined it to mean, not you. And THEY do not use "31/0" to mean "31 divided zero times".


Again, not the case, in pure mathematics, different systems are approachable for comparison of differation, even the thinking of a schizophrenic.

Likewise, you have a incredible burden of proof to show nowhere else in pure or applied mathematics we don't operate anywhere established as Ecmandu is describing. A keen observer of the ways and means of life will likely poke some serious holes in your presumption James. History has shown even defunct, rotten systems of mathematics can still yield useful, dependable results. Our own modern theories are likely full of Swiss Cheese, but it is pragmatic to stick to them as long as they can still be shown to be useful.

One man using a better system is a improvement over everyone using avlousy one, without ever questioning why. It is evidence of the I dominable spirit of the philosophical man.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby demoralized » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:32 am

James S Saint wrote:Then divide 2 apples into a lack of quantity of apples.


Hmmm do units matter?

I suppose 2 apples divided into a lack of quantity of oranges could be the same answer
demoralized
Thinker
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:27 am

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby James S Saint » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:34 am

Turd Ferguson wrote:
You can claim that if you want to invent your own notation, but I wouldn't count on anyone but you using it. For the rest of the world, the notation means whatever THEY defined it to mean, not you. And THEY do not use "31/0" to mean "31 divided zero times".


Again, not the case, in pure mathematics, different systems are approachable for comparison of differation, even the thinking of a schizophrenic.

Likewise, you have a incredible burden of proof to show nowhere else in pure or applied mathematics we don't operate anywhere established as Ecmandu is describing. A keen observer of the ways and means of life will likely poke some serious holes in your presumption James. History has shown even defunct, rotten systems of mathematics can still yield useful, dependable results. Our own modern theories are likely full of Swiss Cheese, but it is pragmatic to stick to them as long as they can still be shown to be useful.

One man using a better system is a improvement over everyone using avlousy one, without ever questioning why. It is evidence of the I dominable spirit of the philosophical man.

People create notations and ontologies. Usefulness through consistency is required for anyone else to use it. The notation system belongs to whoever created it.

A notation system is not a matter of truth but of standard use. Ecmandu doesn't create the standard. And no, it is of no great burden to prove that the standard in use is contrary to what he proposes as a standard (not to mention that his version would be useless).

incorrect wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Then divide 2 apples into a lack of quantity of apples.


Hmmm do units matter?

I suppose 2 apples divided into a lack of quantity of oranges could be the same answer

Units do matter in that they must remain consistent throughout.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25782
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby surreptitious57 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:09 am

phyllo wrote:
The consequence of your interpretation of division by zero is that 31/0=31 and 31/1=31 which means that 1 is
mathematically the same as 0. And if that is true then 1+1=2 but also 0+1=2 and 0+0=2 and 10=11 and 31=30 Yes
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby surreptitious57 » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:12 am

James S Saint wrote:
You can claim that if you want to invent your own notation but I would not count on anyone but you using it. For the rest of the
world the notation means whatever THEY defined it to mean not you. And THEY do not use 31/0 to mean 31 divided zero times Yes
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1931
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby The Golden Turd » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:16 am

People create notations and ontologies. Usefulness through consistency is required for anyone else to use it. The notation system belongs to whoever created it.

A notation system is not a matter of truth but of standard use. Ecmandu doesn't create the standard. And no, it is of no great burden to prove that the standard in use is contrary to what he proposes as a standard (not to mention that his version would be useless).


We create nptational symbology but do not create Ontologies, we use Ontological directives that already are inherent in us. Tat Tvam Asi is a case of this, and the Ontological presumptions follow a ridged epistemic closure.

Tat Tvam Asi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi

Epistemic Closure
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure

If you assume 1/Monad is Whole, and that Dyad/Duality is illusion, based on misconception of true nature like Shankara did, it morphs the nature of casual inference and numerical succession significantly, Buddhism and Advaita are largely at odds with one another in mathematics, while oddly shadowing one another in key concepts. The Ontology already existed, isn't dependent on name and notion, it is how we process and think of self and otherness, it's uniqueness of information is a non issue, as the awareness of processing is what makes a "thing" a unique experience. In a situational context, more so.

As a Cognitive Non-Dualist, it us easy for me to ply through the various schools of Non-Duality, as it is all mathematically based on processing Subject-Object presumptions. I have considerable success at it. You can see what I mean in this English Subtitled movie in Sanskrit of Shankara developing a Monistic model of mathematics that defies everyone's presumptions in this thread, especially James and Phyllo's further reasoning. When Ontology and Epistemology starts running up together, logic yields to neurology.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CFH95llYAFs

You can also see Ecmandu rolling around in dirt and a river in that movie. Crazy fuckers.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby James S Saint » Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:44 am

Turd Ferguson wrote:do not create Ontologies,

Yes, we do: e.g. RM:Affectance Ontology
All of classical physics is an ontology. Relativity is another ontology. Quantum Physics is yet another (as ridiculous as it is). The Abramic religions stem from yet another. The I Ching, still another.

Turd Ferguson wrote: we use Ontological directives that already are inherent in us.

What we use to do it is another issue. But at least you made it clear that we do create ontologies.


We also create notations; mathematics, languages, symbologies. Ecmandu can claim that a square "actually has" three sides and give some argument concerning it. But Ecmandu doesn't dictate the standards for the language. The same is true for the notations in mathematics. The division symbol doesn't mean what he says or thinks, except in his own personal misunderstood version.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25782
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:53 pm

So explain to me how division is used.

I often say to people that some of the smartest people are people who don't understand something because there's nothing to understand.

There's the issue of simply dividing which is a branch of math that's only in my notebooks right now, and there's dividing EQUALLY, which is the standard you're all used to.

Even if you use the latter standard...

You are effectively dividing zero 31 times, or dividing zero into 31, or dividing 31 zero times, or dividing 31 into zero...

My logic is infallible ...

You all understand something in a combination of words which cannot actually be understood
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: Dividing by zero

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:04 pm

I forgot...

Explain to me how division isn't the reciprocal of multiplication???
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users