Is \(\frac{1/0}{1/0}\) Equal to 1 or Undefined?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eNathan
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the mathematical interpretation of the expression \(\frac{1/0}{1/0}\), with participants debating whether it should be considered equal to 1 or undefined. The consensus is that division by zero is fundamentally undefined, making any expression involving it meaningless. Participants highlight that while variables like "x" can represent numbers, \(1/0\) does not correspond to any numerical value, thus invalidating operations involving it. The conversation also touches on the concept of limits and the behavior of functions as they approach undefined values, emphasizing that limits do not equate to the values at those points. Ultimately, the thread concludes that abstract mathematical concepts cannot always adhere to the same rules as concrete numbers.
  • #31
No, you cannot. "a;kljdfa;lkjasdf" is undefined, and thus so is any expression involving it.

You also cannot say "a;kljdfa;lkjasdf = a;kljdfa;lkjasdf"
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Then, how can an undefined entity differ from itself? If they are the same, comparing sames doesn't equal one?
 
  • #33
but the implication of [x / 0] / [x / 0] = 1 is perposterous. but you are right in saying that it can be manipulated to get a numerical result
 
  • #34
also, can't you apply geomtric reasoning, since we DO know what happens to C/X when X approaches 0?
 
  • #35
Then, how can an undefined entity differ from itself?

It is just as invalid to say "a;kljdfa;lkjasdf \neq a;kljdfa;lkjasdf" as it is to say "a;kljdfa;lkjasdf = a;kljdfa;lkjasdf".
 
  • #36
The point is, you can't write any valid equation involving something that doesn't exist!
 
  • #37
mathmike said:
but the implication of [x / 0] / [x / 0] = 1 is perposterous. but you are right in saying that it can be manipulated to get a numerical result

To say that it equals zero is even more preposterous. I think we've reached a conclusion for this thread: abstract concepts cannot follow all of the same rules as concrete numbers.
 
  • #38
No matter how "abstract" a object is (in mathematics), it is still defined "as rigorously" as something more "concrete". Different objects obey different rules, but some objects don't have laxer rules making them less well-defined.
 
  • #39
Agreed. My only point was that you cannot apply all of the rules of algebra to infinity and division by zero.
 
  • #40
yes but i can show that the limit is zero when x approches 0 but it cannot be shown in any manner that it is 1. so saying it is zero is not perposterous, in fact it follows l'hopitals therom. can you show that the limit is in any way 1.
 
  • #41
The limit of the particular function you mentioned is zero. Limits of the form inf/inf generally are not zero.
 
  • #42
actually more often than not they are zero.
 
  • #43
What do you mean by "more often than not"? You took the example of f(x)=x/e^x, but one could just as easily take f(x)=(e^x)/x, which clearly approaches infinity as x approaches infinity. And in any case, niether example shows what (1/0)/(1/0) is equal to, they simply show how some particular functions behave as they approach this.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K