Does Zero Divided by Zero Equal One and Zero at the Same Time?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Slicklight
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Zero
Slicklight
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Please bear with me. This is my first post.

I've put together quickly, with the best logic I could fathom, a solution to the infamous 0/0.

Does 0/0 = 1 and 0 at the same time with respect to 0?

By taking zero and dividing it by zero, you acknowledge that there is, in fact, the 'presence' of more than one zero. So "a zero" divided by "a zero" is also "a zero" no?
So zero isn't actually 'just plain' zero so much as it is... a zero. A single zero. One zero. Get it?

0/0 = 0

But 0 = (1*0)

Hence there are no ones, there is one zero.

1*0 obviously equals zero but... there is 'a'... zero. Presence.


Could someone aid me with my recent confusion/is this question more for a psychology/philosophy/theoretical physics themed site?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I see no "mathematics" or "pschology/philosophy/theoretical physics in what you wrote, just a lot of confusion mixed with as little "mysticism" when you talk about "zero isn't actually 'just plain' zero so much as it is... a zero. A single zero. One zero". Or was that just a pun on the different meanings of "one" in English.

I hope you see that a calculation cannot be "0 and 1 at the same time". 0/0, as a single calculation simply doesn't have a value. There are a number of different limits that, if you were to ignore basic rules of limits, would appear to give "0/0" but in fact can give many different limits: \lim_{x\to 0} x^2/x= 0, \lim_{x\to 0} x/x= 1, \lim_{x\to 0} ax/x= a for any a.
 
Slicklight,
The short answer is that you can't divide by zero. Period.

You have a lot of confusion about zero. Perhaps this post will be helpful: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=530207

Owing to the lack of actual mathematics in your post, I am locking this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Slicklight said:
By taking zero and dividing it by zero, you acknowledge that there is, in fact, the 'presence' of more than one zero.
No, there's only one. The way to see this is to consider what happens if there are two zeros, let's call them 0 and 0'. We would have 0'=0'·0=0. So the two zeros are the same.

Slicklight said:
So zero isn't actually 'just plain' zero so much as it is... a zero. A single zero. One zero. Get it?
Not at all.
 
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...
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Back
Top