Can a number divided by zero be defined using Jeff Cook's number system X/0?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeff Cook
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    System
AI Thread Summary
A number divided by zero can be defined using Jeff Cook's theorem by extending it to a function q(x) that approaches zero as x approaches infinity. The theorem states that the first value of this function is q(2) with values involving ±pi or ±log(-1), under the condition that epi equals -1. There is confusion regarding whether q(x) is a specific function or an arbitrary one with the stated limit. The discussion highlights skepticism about the validity of defining x/0 in this manner, with some dismissing the argument as nonsensical. Overall, the conversation centers on the complexities and implications of defining division by zero in mathematical terms.
Jeff Cook
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
X/0 can be defined...

Definitive Theorem:

A number divided by zero can be defined by extending it to a function q (x), whose limit is zero as it approaches infinity, whose first value is equal to q (2) (± pi) or q (2) (± log (-1)), considering epi = -1

Jeff Cook
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Jeff Cook said:
Definitive Theorem:

A number divided by zero can be defined by extending it to a function q (x), whose limit is zero as it approaches infinity, whose first value is equal to q (2) (± pi) or q (2) (± log (-1)), considering epi = -1

Jeff Cook

This doesn't make sense to me are you defining x/0 to be a function q(x)? Can you explicity state what q(x) is or is it just any arbitrary function with a limit of 0 as x approaches infinity? I don't understand what you mean by "whose first value is equal to q (2) (± pi) or q (2) (± log (-1)), considering epi = -1 "
 
indeed 0/0 = 1. and the moon is made of green cheese. and 2 buck chuck is good cheap wine.
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
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 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top