When we consider they product of all reals except 0, we can split up the product as such: [a * (1/a)] * [b * (1/b)] * -1 * 1 = -1, where [a * (1/a)] is the product of all a>1 and [b * (1/b)] is the product of all b<-1. This is to be sure that none of the reals are repeated. This is A solution that seems pretty solid to me, so we can be relatively certain that -1 is a solution.
Your (bubbloy) question is if it would work when 1/a or 1/b are replaced with 1/(2a) or 1/(2b) respectively.
It depends on how you look at it. If you treat 1/(2a) as a number by itself, then yes the product converges to 0, and this is due to the nature of the reals.
But, if you look at that product, you're basically saying that the product of all reals is the basically the same as taking the product of all reals multiplied to an infinite number of halves. So they're not really the same ... and I guess that's where the issue of defining the product becomes a problem, because it should work, but it doesn't seem to work.
So, the product of all reals MIGHT approach 0, depending on how you set it up..
I'm not too sure if your mapping (which I'm roughly translating to as a pairing of factors) of a -> 2a works, because it seems like you get repeating numbers in this product i.e. 2*4 and 4*8
Instead of mapping a to 1/(2a), we can also map a to 2/a, and that's how we can get the convergence to infinity. Again, this comes with issues, so it MIGHT be true ...
As Office_Shredder mentioned, once you consider other cases, the problem is whether you accept that all reals are included or not ...
So now it's up to you to choose :)