| New Reply |
Is 0 (zero) a convention? |
Share Thread | Thread Tools |
| Nov18-11, 08:12 AM | #1 |
|
Blog Entries: 2
|
Is 0 (zero) a convention?
Hi, not sure if this is the right forum.. pls move if not.
Almost 30 years ago, I was studying engineering and my math tutor spoke about 0 (zero) being special. We talked about how nothing can be divided by zero, and sure enough, enter 1/0 into a calculator produces an error. (I vaguely recall learning this in high school). Something occurred to me and I asked him about it. Here's the steps I put in front of him: 0/0 = 1 0/1 = 0 1/1 = 1 1/0= error But 1/0 x 0/1 = 1 I asked, how can this be. He could not give me an answer. I've asked a few math teachers since then and none could give me an answer. Is it simply a matter of convention, or is something else going on? |
| Nov18-11, 08:37 AM | #2 |
|
Mentor
|
0/0 is not one. It has no meaning. It is undefined.
|
| Nov18-11, 09:22 AM | #3 |
|
|
In order to see why division by zero is undefined, you must consider the very definition of division. We say that m is divisible by n if and only if there is a unique integer k such that k*n=m. We then call k=m/n.
But if n=0 and m is nonzero, then this reduces to k*n=0=m. This can never be satisfied. So there is no such thing as division by zero. What if m is zero? Certainly the equation holds then: if m=0 and n=0 then k*n=m reduces to 0=0. The problem is that k is not unique. So k=1,2,... all satisfies the equation. So we could potentially say that 0/0=1 or 0/0=2. Every possible value can be given to 0/0!! This is why we do not define 0/0. As for your equation [tex]\frac{1}{0}*\frac{0}{1}=1[/tex] Well it just isn't true. 1/0 is not defined, so the left hand side is undefined. |
| Nov18-11, 04:42 PM | #4 |
|
Blog Entries: 2
|
Is 0 (zero) a convention?
Let us first consider what an inverse is. The inverse
is a number with a certain property, namely if you multiply a number with its inverse you will get 1. Example 1: number=2 inverse=1/2 Proof: Multiplication yields number*inverse = 2*(1/2) = 1 Example 2: number=37 inverse=1/37 Proof: number*inverse = 37*(1/37) = 1 2 and 37 have inverses, which is equivalent to saying that 1/2 and 1/37 exist. ------ Now, consider the number 0. Assumption: 0 has an inverse. This assumption is equivalent to saying that 1/0 exists. Then we have: Example 3: number=0 inverse=1/0 Proof: number*inverse = 0*(1/0) = 1 But this is a contradiction to the fact that 0 multiplied by a number always equals 0. Therefore, our assumption that the number 1/0 exists is wrong. |
| Nov18-11, 05:18 PM | #5 |
|
Blog Entries: 2
|
Thanks guys, that's actually helped and both explanations were easy to follow - the unique integer explanation and the inverse explanation make sense. As for 0/0, that explanation clarified my long held misconception, that anything divided by itself = 1, as taught in high school, because it needs to be qualified in either or both senses as you've explained, or more simply applied to numbers other than zero.
![]() hmm.. Followup question.. Is ∞/∞ = 1 true? |
| Nov18-11, 05:33 PM | #6 |
|
Mentor
|
|
| New Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads for: Is 0 (zero) a convention?
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| convention for npn and pnp bjt | Electrical Engineering | 0 | ||
| Summation Convention | General Math | 2 | ||
| potential, convention | Introductory Physics Homework | 3 | ||
| Convention of n_(i,j) | General Physics | 3 | ||
| Convention problem | General Physics | 1 | ||