Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Another annoying one divide zero thread.

  1. Jul 7, 2004 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Another annoying one divide zero thread. :)

    The statement : | 1/0 | > 3 is,

    a) true
    b) false
    c) invalid

    I'm happy enough to say it's true but what do you think?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 7, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Sure. Just because something is undefined does not mean we can't make some determinations as to it's nature.

  4. Jul 7, 2004 #3

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    1/0 is not a member of the ordered field of real numbers, so which ordered set is this a statement about?
  5. Jul 7, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If it's not defined in the reals, it does not exist among the reals.

    Alternatively, you can not make determinations of its nature, if its nature is not defined.

    ...I think.
  6. Jul 7, 2004 #5
    I think this all depends how you are defining >. If you are defining the relation > on the set of reals, then the statement is invalid since 1/0 is not a real number.
  7. Jul 7, 2004 #6


    User Avatar

    What type of number is 1/0 then?
  8. Jul 9, 2004 #7

    |1/0| > 3 = ...

    1/0 > 3,
    1/0 > -3

    Looks like true though its invalid because..

    ╚> Nevermind..Just try to divide your cake with 0 next time before you eat it..And you will see why its invalid..
  9. Jul 9, 2004 #8
    I don't think there is a catagory for the number. I would venture to say imaginary, but I don't know how that would work!

    Paden Roder
  10. Jul 9, 2004 #9
    It isn't. Its undefined.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook