0/0 = 1?

  • Thread starter foges
  • Start date
53
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

I did a search first but didnt really find anything, this is something ive been wondering for a bit:

Both my calculator and math teacher tell me I cant ever divide by zero, but what if you had 0/0 ? couldnt that work, and equal 1? or is there a case in which this would not work?
 

Answers and Replies

LeonhardEuler
Gold Member
858
1
Division by 0 is not defined. It's tempting to say that since every other number divided by itself is 1, so should 0. But this would have some strange consequences. Consider the function
[tex]y=\frac{x}{x}[/tex]
If x is not 0, then y=1. So it seems natural that y should also be 1 at x=0. But now consider this function:
[tex]y=\frac{x}{x^3}[/tex]
When x=0, we also get y=0/0. But when x gets close to 0, y gets larger and larger and approaches infinity. It doesn't seem reasonable to say y=1 when x is zero. This is one reason division by 0 is left behind. Functions that approch 0/0 are important in the study of calculus.
 
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,738
896
In fact, given any real number r, we can find fractions f(x)/g(x) where both f and g have limit 0 (as x goes to a) but f(x)/g(x) goes to r.

By the way, while we say that a/0, for a not 0, is "undefined", it is common to say that 0/0 is "undetermined". If we try to set a/0= x then we must have a= 0(x) which is impossible. On the other hand, if 0/0= x then we must have 0= 0(x) for which is true for all values of x.
 
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
Remember that EVERY fraction a/b can be seen as the product a*(1/b)

The number (1/b) is that number which multiplied with b yields 1, i.e, b*(1/b)=1, by definition of 1/b.
1/b is called the reciprocal of b.

However, without resorting to any idea of reciprocals at all, we may prove that for ANY number a, we have 0*a=0.
But that means that THERE CANNOT EXIST A NUMBER 1/0!!!

Therefore, the reciprocal 1/b can only be defined for numbers not equal to zero.

Thus, the expression 0/0=0*1/0 tries to do the impossible thing, namely multiplying together something that IS a number (0), and something that ISN't a number (1/0). But multiplication requires that both factors are, indeed, numbers..
 
53
0
Thanx, i guess i was thinking too simply. I managed to dissprove myself:

0=0*3

0/0 = (0*3)/0 = (0/0)*3

And if 0/0 = 1, Then:

1 = 1*3

1=3
 
I never understood a thing... isn't right to say that:

[tex]\frac{0}{0}=\mathbb{R}[/tex]

When i can't solve a problem, can i go to the prof saying:" the solution is 0/0!!!!"?
 
matt grime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
9,394
3
R is a set. Are you asserting that, what ever 0/0 is, it is a set?
 
R is a set. Are you asserting that, what ever 0/0 is, it is a set?
yes. for example, the limits in the indeterminate form, if it can be removed, they can assume any result in R you wish. or not?
 
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,946
130
In this case, you have devised a fantasy function having two real arguments going to some set of sets. Nothing wrong with that of course, except it hasn't anything to do with a BINARY OPERATION, like multiplication or division.
 
Gib Z
Homework Helper
3,344
4
Sure you could choose to have a function where you choose whatever value from the real numbers you want, but you will find picking the right number is pretty hard :P
 
103
0
Thanx, i guess i was thinking too simply. I managed to dissprove myself:

0=0*3

0/0 = (0*3)/0 = (0/0)*3

And if 0/0 = 1, Then:

1 = 1*3

1=3
There's a problem in your second step =).

It'd be (0*3)/(0*3). Even then, it'd be 0 in the end.

But it's just fantasy math with a lot of problems/flaws in the reasoning heh.
 
Last edited:
1,073
1
There's a problem in your second step =).

It'd be (0*3)/(0*3). Even then, it'd be 0 in the end.

But it's just fantasy math with a lot of problems/flaws in the reasoning heh.
It doesn't matter if they are equivalent, since it is obviously the case that 0*3=0.
 
103
0
Then you have the case of saying 0/0 = 1; when before you stated 0 = 0*3... Where in you have 0/0 = 3 :p. A lot of flaws.

You can't switch things up like that just because you feel like it.
 
1,073
1
Then you have the case of saying 0/0 = 1; when before you stated 0 = 0*3... Where in you have 0/0 = 3 :p. A lot of flaws.
Obviously there are flaws. Was that unexpected? Division by zero is not defined. 0=0*3 is a common fact that follows from axioms for the real numbers, nowhere did we say 0/0=3, but this "disproof" is based on an assumption that 0/0=1.

You can't switch things up like that just because you feel like it.
If they are EQUAL you certainly can. You seem to be saying something along the lines of I can't interchange 22 and 4. despite the fact that they are the same thing.
 
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,843
17
The thread has seem to run its course, so I'm closing it.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: 0/0 = 1?

  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
106
Views
16K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
81
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
Top