- #1

- 206

- 1

if u divide any real number by 0 is it + infinite or - infinite

is it : +infinite when the number if positive, and -infinite when the number is negative ?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter JPC
- Start date

In summary, division by zero is undefined in arithmetic over real numbers. This is because the division operation is the inverse of multiplication, and there is no real number that can satisfy the equation 0*x=6. Therefore, division by zero does not result in infinity, but rather it is simply undefined. The concept of infinity is not a number and cannot be used to define division by zero. This is a man-made concept and does not have any practical or logical significance in arithmetic.

- #1

- 206

- 1

if u divide any real number by 0 is it + infinite or - infinite

is it : +infinite when the number if positive, and -infinite when the number is negative ?

Mathematics news on Phys.org

- #2

Homework Helper

- 1,435

- 186

Technically, division by zero is undefined; but, essentially yes, with a few modifications: dividing a positive real number by a number which *approaches* zero through positive values *approaches* [tex]+\infty[/tex]. Consider the graph of [tex]y=\frac{3}{x}[/tex] below:

note that the function value (or y value) approaches [tex]+\infty[/tex] as x approaches zero through positive values (from the right side of zero); but the function value (or y value) approaches [tex]-\infty[/tex] as x approaches zero through negative values (from the left side of zero).

note that the function value (or y value) approaches [tex]+\infty[/tex] as x approaches zero through positive values (from the right side of zero); but the function value (or y value) approaches [tex]-\infty[/tex] as x approaches zero through negative values (from the left side of zero).

Last edited:

- #3

- 206

- 1

yeah but i mean , is 0 positive or negative ?

or is it just undefined as u said ?

or is it just undefined as u said ?

- #4

- 13,316

- 2,702

0 is neither positive, nor negative and division by 0 in arithmetics over reals is undefined.

- #5

Gold Member

- 22,200

- 5,770

Dividing by zero does not result in infinity, it results in undefined. Here's why:

The division operation,**by definition**, is the inverse of multiplication. 6/3 is equal to 2 **because** 2*3=6.

But if we try that with zero, we start with**0*x=6**. This equation has no solution **at all** - there is **no** value of x (including infinity) that can make that equation true.

Since the multiplicative has no solution, the inverse has no solution (not even infinity).

The division operation,

But if we try that with zero, we start with

Since the multiplicative has no solution, the inverse has no solution (not even infinity).

Last edited:

- #6

- 136

- 1

- #7

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 10,106

- 136

Does he mean that? I don't think so..haiha said:Dividing by zero is undefined. In fact when someone says a number A (positive) divided by zero, he means it is divided by an epsilon and then find the lim of the result when epsilon approaches to zero.

SHOULD he mean that? He certainly should not.

- #8

- 1,427

- 1

- #9

- 486

- 0

INFINITY IS NOT A NUMBER! Thus we cannot define dividion with zero. To prove that infinity is not a number

let suppose

inf = 1/0;

then 0* inf = 1,

but 0 = 1 * 0 = 0 * (0 * inf ) = (0 * 0 ) * inf = inf * 0 = 1

Contradiction.

Thus division with zero is still remain undefined.

let suppose

inf = 1/0;

then 0* inf = 1,

but 0 = 1 * 0 = 0 * (0 * inf ) = (0 * 0 ) * inf = inf * 0 = 1

Contradiction.

Thus division with zero is still remain undefined.

Last edited:

- #10

- 1,059

- 1

The standard proceedure with historians is to go from 1BC to 1AD, thus 1000AD is 999 years after 1 BC. If you consider BC to be negative and AD to be positive, well then, as you see here, there is no such thing as year 0, so it can not be positive or negative in this system.

Last edited:

- #11

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,971

- 26

What does that have to do with anything?robert Ihnot said:The standard proceedure with historians is to go from 1BC to 1AD, thus 1000AD is 999 years after 1 BC. If you consider BC to be negative and AD to be positive, well then, as you see here, there is no such thing as year 0, so it can not be positive or negative in this system.

- #12

- 1,059

- 1

Hurkyl: What does that have to do with anything?

i am sorry if this is troublesome, i thought it was a joke. I could have added, it does illustrate the fact that 0 was not accepted by early historians, and so the tradition just continued. It is the reason why we are now in the 21st Century, but in the year 2007.

i am sorry if this is troublesome, i thought it was a joke. I could have added, it does illustrate the fact that 0 was not accepted by early historians, and so the tradition just continued. It is the reason why we are now in the 21st Century, but in the year 2007.

Last edited:

- #13

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 43,008

- 974

Werg22 said:

Yes- it does not mean anything because it is not defined to be anything- it is

- #14

Gold Member

- 22,200

- 5,770

Werg22 said:

But simply declaring that "it is undefined because we say so" is not a satisfactory answer.

There IS a good, logical reason why it is undefined, and it can be shown, as posts 5 and 9.

- #15

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,971

- 26

There are two separate issues here.DaveC426913 said:But simply declaring that "it is undefined because we say so" is not a satisfactory answer.

There IS a good, logical reason why it is undefined, and it can be shown, as posts 5 and 9.

"It is (un)defined because we say so" is essentially the

1/0 is undefined (for real division) precisely because this expression fails to satisfy the requirement that the dividend is a real number and the divisor is a nonzero real number. Similarly, if x is a variable denoting a real number, then x/x is undefined. (y/y would be defined if y is a variable denoting a nonzero real number, though)

You are talking about the reason why we would ever have chosen to define division this way. There is a good reason for that. (I think "practical" is more accurate than "logical", though) But the reasons for choosing the definition are entirely irrelevant to the question of what is or is not defined.

- #16

Gold Member

- 22,200

- 5,770

Surely, the historical order of occurence is:

1] We "invent" division (as the inverse of multiplcation)

2] We realize that dividing by zero is problematic

3] We put in place a rule so as not to cause problems

- #17

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,971

- 26

I'm not. There is a difference between the questionDaveC426913 said:Why would you insist that we defined it a certain waybeforethere was a reason to need it to be that way?

"Why is 1/0 undefined?"

and the question

"Why did we define division so that 1/0 is undefined?"

- #18

- 42

- 0

If we say y(a number) divided by x as x approched infity equals 0. Can we say 0 times x as x approches infity equals Y.

Does division by 0 is undefined for only real numbers or all complex numbers.

Does division by 0 is undefined for only real numbers or all complex numbers.

Last edited:

- #19

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,971

- 26

minase said:y divided by x as x approched infity equals 0

This doesn't make sense. I will assume you meant to say:

"The limit of y divided by x, as x approaches infinity, equals 0"

or equivalently

"y divided by x approaches 0 as x approaches infinity"

Can we say 0 times x as x approches infity equals Y.

Similarly, I will assume you meant to say

"The limit of 0 times x, as x approaches infinity, equals y"

or equivalently

"0 times x approaches y as x approaches infinity"

The second statement does not follow (directly or indirectly) from the first. The second statement is true iff y = 0.

- #20

- 42

- 0

Can you use the same rule for limits as an ordinary equation y/x=0, 0*x=Y.

- #21

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 43,008

- 974

"limit of y/x, as x goes to infinity, y fixed, equals 0" is only true if y is not 0.

No, we cannot say "0*x, as x approaches infinity equals y". 0*x for any real x is 0 so the limit is 0.

- #22

- 42

- 0

- #23

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 43,008

- 974

No, it's not at all the same thing.

- #24

- 370

- 0

Don't you guys know? 1/0 = infinity and 0^0=0/0 = golden ratio. How poetic!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml

I shed a tear for those kiddies learning such trash.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml

I shed a tear for those kiddies learning such trash.

Last edited:

- #25

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 43,008

- 974

ZioX said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml

I shed a tear for those kiddies learning such trash.

No, we don't know that because it isn't true. "infinity" is not a number so 1/0= infinity is non-sense. The golden ratio is a number but neither 0

Are you referring to us kiddies having to read your trash?

(I just went and looked at the website- Ah, you were being sarcastic! Sorry about that.)

Last edited by a moderator:

Share:

- Replies
- 23

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 20

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 791

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 608

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 951

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 671

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 606