Does Zero Divided by Zero Equal One and Zero at the Same Time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Slicklight
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Zero
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the mathematical concept of dividing zero by zero (0/0) and whether it can equal both one and zero simultaneously. The original poster argues that dividing "a zero" by "a zero" implies the existence of multiple zeros, suggesting a philosophical interpretation of zero. However, responses clarify that 0/0 is undefined in mathematics, emphasizing that it cannot yield a definitive value and that the notion of multiple zeros is a misunderstanding. The conversation highlights the importance of adhering to mathematical principles, as dividing by zero is fundamentally not permissible. Ultimately, the thread concludes with a consensus that 0/0 does not have a valid mathematical interpretation.
Slicklight
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Please bear with me. This is my first post.

I've put together quickly, with the best logic I could fathom, a solution to the infamous 0/0.

Does 0/0 = 1 and 0 at the same time with respect to 0?

By taking zero and dividing it by zero, you acknowledge that there is, in fact, the 'presence' of more than one zero. So "a zero" divided by "a zero" is also "a zero" no?
So zero isn't actually 'just plain' zero so much as it is... a zero. A single zero. One zero. Get it?

0/0 = 0

But 0 = (1*0)

Hence there are no ones, there is one zero.

1*0 obviously equals zero but... there is 'a'... zero. Presence.


Could someone aid me with my recent confusion/is this question more for a psychology/philosophy/theoretical physics themed site?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I see no "mathematics" or "pschology/philosophy/theoretical physics in what you wrote, just a lot of confusion mixed with as little "mysticism" when you talk about "zero isn't actually 'just plain' zero so much as it is... a zero. A single zero. One zero". Or was that just a pun on the different meanings of "one" in English.

I hope you see that a calculation cannot be "0 and 1 at the same time". 0/0, as a single calculation simply doesn't have a value. There are a number of different limits that, if you were to ignore basic rules of limits, would appear to give "0/0" but in fact can give many different limits: \lim_{x\to 0} x^2/x= 0, \lim_{x\to 0} x/x= 1, \lim_{x\to 0} ax/x= a for any a.
 
Slicklight,
The short answer is that you can't divide by zero. Period.

You have a lot of confusion about zero. Perhaps this post will be helpful: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=530207

Owing to the lack of actual mathematics in your post, I am locking this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Slicklight said:
By taking zero and dividing it by zero, you acknowledge that there is, in fact, the 'presence' of more than one zero.
No, there's only one. The way to see this is to consider what happens if there are two zeros, let's call them 0 and 0'. We would have 0'=0'·0=0. So the two zeros are the same.

Slicklight said:
So zero isn't actually 'just plain' zero so much as it is... a zero. A single zero. One zero. Get it?
Not at all.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top