Is Zero Division a Matter of Convention or Something Else?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter narrator
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Convention Zero
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of division by zero, specifically exploring whether it is a matter of convention or if there are underlying mathematical principles that dictate its undefined nature. Participants examine the implications of dividing by zero and related concepts, including the case of 0/0 and the expression ∞/∞.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant recalls a math tutor discussing the special nature of zero and poses a question about the validity of certain division operations involving zero.
  • Another participant asserts that 0/0 is undefined, emphasizing that it lacks meaning.
  • A different participant explains that division by zero is undefined based on the definition of division, noting that if m is zero and n is also zero, k is not unique, leading to the conclusion that 0/0 cannot be defined.
  • One participant discusses the concept of an inverse and argues that assuming 0 has an inverse leads to contradictions, reinforcing that 1/0 does not exist.
  • A participant expresses appreciation for the explanations provided, indicating a clarification of their understanding regarding division by zero and the case of 0/0.
  • A follow-up question is raised about the validity of ∞/∞, which is subsequently deemed undefined for similar reasons as division by zero.
  • Another participant reiterates that ∞/∞ is undefined, noting that it could represent any value but assigning a specific value leads to contradictions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that division by zero is undefined, but there are differing views on the implications of 0/0 and the expression ∞/∞, with some arguing it could take on multiple values while others maintain it is undefined.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the nuances in defining division by zero and related concepts, with participants acknowledging the need for careful consideration of definitions and assumptions. There is no consensus on the implications of expressions like 0/0 and ∞/∞.

narrator
Messages
241
Reaction score
17
Hi, not sure if this is the right forum.. pls move if not.

Almost 30 years ago, I was studying engineering and my math tutor spoke about 0 (zero) being special. We talked about how nothing can be divided by zero, and sure enough, enter 1/0 into a calculator produces an error. (I vaguely recall learning this in high school).

Something occurred to me and I asked him about it. Here's the steps I put in front of him:

0/0 = 1
0/1 = 0
1/1 = 1
1/0= error

But 1/0 x 0/1 = 1

I asked, how can this be. He could not give me an answer. I've asked a few math teachers since then and none could give me an answer.

Is it simply a matter of convention, or is something else going on?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
0/0 is not one. It has no meaning. It is undefined.
 
In order to see why division by zero is undefined, you must consider the very definition of division. We say that m is divisible by n if and only if there is a unique integer k such that k*n=m. We then call k=m/n.

But if n=0 and m is nonzero, then this reduces to k*n=0=m. This can never be satisfied. So there is no such thing as division by zero.

What if m is zero? Certainly the equation holds then: if m=0 and n=0 then k*n=m reduces to 0=0. The problem is that k is not unique. So k=1,2,... all satisfies the equation. So we could potentially say that 0/0=1 or 0/0=2. Every possible value can be given to 0/0! This is why we do not define 0/0.

As for your equation

[tex]\frac{1}{0}*\frac{0}{1}=1[/tex]

Well it just isn't true. 1/0 is not defined, so the left hand side is undefined.
 
Let us first consider what an inverse is. The inverse
is a number with a certain property, namely if you multiply
a number with its inverse you will get 1.

Example 1:
number=2
inverse=1/2
Proof: Multiplication yields
number*inverse = 2*(1/2) = 1

Example 2:
number=37
inverse=1/37
Proof: number*inverse = 37*(1/37) = 1

2 and 37 have inverses, which is equivalent to saying that 1/2 and 1/37 exist.

------


Now, consider the number 0.
Assumption: 0 has an inverse.
This assumption is equivalent to saying that 1/0 exists.

Then we have:

Example 3:
number=0
inverse=1/0
Proof: number*inverse = 0*(1/0) = 1

But this is a contradiction to the fact that 0 multiplied by
a number always equals 0. Therefore, our assumption that
the number 1/0 exists is wrong.
 
Thanks guys, that's actually helped and both explanations were easy to follow - the unique integer explanation and the inverse explanation make sense. As for 0/0, that explanation clarified my long held misconception, that anything divided by itself = 1, as taught in high school, because it needs to be qualified in either or both senses as you've explained, or more simply applied to numbers other than zero.
:smile:

hmm.. Followup question.. Is ∞/∞ = 1 true?
 
narrator said:
Is ∞/∞ = 1 true?
Undefined, for much the same reason. In one sense it can be any value, but in another sense saying that this has any specific value will lead to a contradiction.
 
D H said:
Undefined, for much the same reason. In one sense it can be any value, but in another sense saying that this has any specific value will lead to a contradiction.
Makes sense :)
thanks all
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 127 ·
5
Replies
127
Views
9K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K