Is Dividing by Zero Always an Absurdity?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DARTZ
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications and absurdities of dividing by zero, using a mathematical example involving the equation A + B = C. Participants explore the steps taken in the argument and the consequences of dividing by a term that equates to zero.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a mathematical argument that leads to dividing by zero, concluding that this results in an absurdity.
  • Another participant requests clarification on the step of factoring out (A + B - C), indicating a need for deeper understanding of the manipulation involved.
  • Several participants assert that dividing by zero is not permissible, using analogies to illustrate the absurdity of such operations.
  • Another participant elaborates on the concept of multiplicative inverses in the real numbers, emphasizing that zero lacks an inverse.
  • One participant questions the validity of the original assumption that A + B = 0, suggesting it contradicts the earlier established values of A and B.
  • Another participant points out that the act of cancelling (A + B - C) is equivalent to dividing by zero, reinforcing the absurdity of the conclusion drawn from the argument.
  • A later reply suggests that the original poster may be aware of the absurdity of dividing by zero and is demonstrating its consequences rather than claiming it as a valid operation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that dividing by zero is not valid and leads to absurd conclusions. However, there is disagreement regarding the interpretation of the original argument and whether the poster is genuinely unaware of the implications or is intentionally demonstrating them.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the limitations of the mathematical manipulations presented, particularly the dependence on the assumption that A + B - C can be factored out without addressing the implications of it equating to zero.

DARTZ
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Assume A + B = C, and assume A = 3 and B = 2.

Multiply both sides of the equation A + B = C by (A + B).

We obtain A² + 2AB + B² = C(A + B)

Rearranging the terms we have

A² + AB - AC = - AB - B² + BC

Factoring out (A + B - C), we have

A(A + B - C) = - B(A + B - C)

Dividing both sides by (A + B - C), that is, dividing by zero, we get A = - B, or A + B = 0, which is evidently absurd.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
DARTZ said:
Factoring out (A + B - C)
Can you elaborate on this step ? What do you mean by "factor out" ?
 
DARTZ said:
Dividing both sides by (A + B - C), that is, dividing by zero

which is evidently absurd.

Yes, it is. You can't divide by 0.

It's like saying : 3 * 0 = 4 * 0 and then attempt to divide by 0 to say that 3 = 4.
 
DARTZ said:
Assume A + B = C, and assume A = 3 and B = 2.

Multiply both sides of the equation A + B = C by (A + B).

We obtain A² + 2AB + B² = C(A + B)

Rearranging the terms we have

A² + AB - AC = - AB - B² + BC

Factoring out (A + B - C), we have

A(A + B - C) = - B(A + B - C)

Dividing both sides by (A + B - C), that is, dividing by zero, we get A = - B, or A + B = 0, which is evidently absurd.

You can not divide by zero, you must do the following:

[tex]\begin{equation}<br /> \begin{align}<br /> A(A+B-C)+B(A+B-C)=&0\\<br /> (A+B-C)(A+B)=&0<br /> \end{align}<br /> \end{equation}[/tex]

which implies that either:

[tex] A+B-C=0\\<br /> \text{ or }\\<br /> A+B=0[/tex]

and of cource the second option is rejected since it contradicts with the first one, unless [tex]C=0[/tex], but if you state at the beginning that [tex]A\neq 0, B\neq 0, \text{ and } C\neq 0[/tex], then the second choise definitely must be rejected.

Regards
 
This really is what Pengwuino said already, but to elaborate . . . In the set of real numbers (R), every non-zero number a has a multiplicative inverse element a-1 such that a * a-1 = 1. However, the set of real numbers does not contain a multiplicative inverse element for zero, that is, there is no real number x such that 0 * x = 1 (a fact that is relatively easy to prove).
 
DARTZ said:
Assume A + B = C, and assume A = 3 and B = 2.

Multiply both sides of the equation A + B = C by (A + B).

We obtain A² + 2AB + B² = C(A + B)

Rearranging the terms we have

A² + AB - AC = - AB - B² + BC

Factoring out (A + B - C), we have

A(A + B - C) = - B(A + B - C)

Dividing both sides by (A + B - C), that is, dividing by zero, we get A = - B, or A + B = 0, which is evidently absurd.
I don't know if I sound like I am robbing straight from your face this problem with "Hey then whatz up?"
Who says 3+2=0 ?
 
Alright, in the first line of your argument, you said "assume A+B=C". And your whole argument stems from cancelling out the factor of A+B-C which means dividing by A+B-C, and from your definition of A+B=C implies A+B-C=C-C or A+B-C=0. Therefore you're dividing by zero.
 
You divided by zero?

OH SHI-
 
DARTZ said:
Dividing both sides by (A + B - C), that is, dividing by zero, we get A = - B, or A + B = 0, which is evidently absurd.

I feel like the original poster, DARTZ, is just posting an interesting demonstration of what kind of mischief dividing by zero leads to and knows perfectly well he can't do so. He even states that he is dividing by 0 and admits the absurdity. DARTZ said he was dividing by zero, and then nearly every post goes and says "hey, you're dividing by zero". I could be wrong though.
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
930