Is the statement |1/0| > 3 valid or invalid?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter uart
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Thread Zero
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
8 replies · 2K views
uart
Science Advisor
Messages
2,797
Reaction score
21
Another annoying one divide zero thread. :)

The statement : | 1/0 | > 3 is,

a) true
b) false
c) invalid



I'm happy enough to say it's true but what do you think?
 

Discussion

Mathematics news on Phys.org
Sure. Just because something is undefined does not mean we can't make some determinations as to it's nature.

Njorl
 
1/0 is not a member of the ordered field of real numbers, so which ordered set is this a statement about?
 
Njorl said:
Sure. Just because something is undefined does not mean we can't make some determinations as to it's nature.

Njorl

If it's not defined in the reals, it does not exist among the reals.

Alternatively, you can not make determinations of its nature, if its nature is not defined.

...I think.
 
I think this all depends how you are defining >. If you are defining the relation > on the set of reals, then the statement is invalid since 1/0 is not a real number.
 
What type of number is 1/0 then?
 
Invalid..


|1/0| > 3 = ...

1/0 > 3,
1/0 > -3

Looks like true though its invalid because..

╚> Nevermind..Just try to divide your cake with 0 next time before you eat it..And you will see why its invalid..
 
I don't think there is a category for the number. I would venture to say imaginary, but I don't know how that would work!

Paden Roder
 
NSX said:
What type of number is 1/0 then?
It isn't. Its undefined.