Dividing by zero

I’ll try to simplify this…

Order of operations is that of you initially establish a quantity, it has to remain quantified for the purpose of the next operation. If the next operation is zero, the quantity remains …

When dealing with multiplication, there is a squaring of the line to keep it’s identity (only variable there is)

Divided by, leaves the initial quantity, but it must also be squared to keep it’s initial existential form.

It’s an order of operations procedure that only applies to zero

It’s implied that if 7 feet exist in one direction, that 7 feet must exist in the other direction in order for it to be quantified as an initial presentation.

If the initial presentation is zero, then zero is the multiplicative sum

A line has no substance, so no.

Again, still, you are merely reading it in a convoluted way.

It is how many TIMES the 31 is taken. The 31 is taken 0 times, and thus 31 * 0 = 0, because no 31 is taken into the final sum.
By the associative property, also 0 * 31 = 0, but because 0 taken 31 times still sums to zero.
In one case, you have NO 31’s. And in the other case, you have 31 zeros.

It is THEIR language. Learn to read what THEY mean by THEIR notation. The fact that you can distort it to read something different is irrelevant. You can do the same with any language.

That’s exceedingly clear James.

I’m doing 31 is taken times 0

And you’re doing 31 is taken 0 times

Now we’ve clarified

The way the language is used can certainly facilitate my perspective on multiplication and division without twisting or convoluting language.

Your interpretation of the language is not the normative btw, so I think you can forgive me using normative language and arguing from there.

We don’t generally say 31 4 times, we say 31 times 4

It most certainly is, but you go do your independent thing.
But also remember as they say, “God has no respect for the individual”.

I edited my post but it didn’t get through…

We don’t say 31 4 times, we say 31 times 4

Attend more to what is meant by people than what is said by people, and you will make far more progress.

So you’re saying that there’s no value in the distinction of:

1.) 31 times 4
2.) 31 4 times

?

It’s not an issue until you hit zero…

31 0 times is zero
31 times zero implies the existent not being acted upon…

Which is the one people always use??

If everyone means what you explained, then why don’t they use language to speak to it?

Math has been here for thousands of years from logiticians!!!

That is called Reverse Polish Notation notation and it’s equivalent to the ‘usual’ way of saying it which is called infix notation.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation

Thanks phyllo,

Read my last post about meaning, just above yours

I read it.

There is no difference in the results produced by those notations.

How can you not see it?!?!

31 not being acted upon is still 31

Hrmmm …

Let me explain this in a different articulation consistent with what I said above …

Zero not only removes itself, but the operator…

There are two ways to look at this if zero is first…

Zero is being acted upon with 31 units… Which leaves 31 units

OR!!!

Zero is a not… In the sense that zero is not being acted upon 31 times, which leaves zero

These types of subtleties for my mind are extremely important.

I think James spoke too soon (clarify -right there in your sig) when he suggested I blow off language completely.

How else do we clarify James??

X divided by Y means X number of elements equally distributed across Y number of groups. The result of division is not the number of elements that remain in the original, undivided, pool of elements but the number of elements in each one of the divisions.

31 divided by 0 means 31 elements equally distributed across 0 number of groups. How many elements do we get in every group after such an operation? But there are no groups – there are 0 groups – so we can’t really answer. Therefore, the result is undefined.

Ecmandu is speaking of a different operation – not division – and he does so because he thinks that words precede concepts rather than the other way around.

Division is not a subtractive operation. You do not remove elements from the starting pool of elements using certain method then count how many elements remain. That’s not division.

Similarly, multiplication is not an additive operation.

If our language implies it, then that’s the problem of language, and you shouldn’t confuse it for a mathematical problem.

It’s not that easy.

The 31 groups are existents, acting upon zero doesn’t change that. You can use the phraseology “distributing into x number of groups”

But the existent remains.

I’ll simply say this: there are multiple ways conceptually to axiomate math

31 elements, not groups/divisions.

There are no existents, no states, in multiplication and division. You are speaking of different operations – ones you made up, invented, imagined, created in your head.

Ok we’ll work with the term “elements”

If 31 elements are distributed equally into (amongst) zero groups… How is that not either 31 or 0???

Undefined is the least likely option of the three, 31 is the most likely option.

What you didn’t get through to you, and I thought I was clear…

Math has more than one axiomatic system foundationally…

I don’t know why that bothers you

Because the result of division is the number of elements within each one of the groups. We are counting the number of elements within groups, not the number of elements outside of these groups. When there are no groups, there is nothing to count, therefore, the result is undefined.

You are accusing people of being brainwashed simply because you do not understand that you are working with different, non-conventional, operations.

Ok, that’s better said.

If I say I have no bananas…

It’s actually a placeholder for bananas that still exist somewhere.

Bananas still exist in order to assert them in some way.

Does that help?