Weird question about dividing by zero

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrandonNajera
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Weird Zero
BrandonNajera
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Ok let a and b be non zero numbers

(\frac{a}{b}) / (\frac{1}{0})=0

But shouldn't that be undefined since you would get a fraction like this \frac{1}{0} which isn't allowed. Since it got us to a "wrong" answer, that would mean our assumption was wrong. Please tell me where I went wrong.Not homework just got thinking about how 1/0 is undefined while 0/1 isn't

(I typed everything wrong please look below)
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
0/1 is just 0. It's when you divided by 0/1 (and hence divided by 0) that you get trouble. Why do you think the fraction you wrote down is equal to zero?
 
Office_Shredder said:
0/1 is just 0. It's when you divided by 0/1 (and hence divided by 0) that you get trouble. Why do you think the fraction you wrote down is equal to zero?

I checked it on my calculator (or at least i thought I did) and it said 0. I did the inverse calculation (1/0) which I think makes more sense now.

Why is it that when I divide x by 1/0 I get 0 instead of an undefined answer

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(a/b)/(1/0)

So please ignore my error in typing. I'm going to go edit it.
 
It could be wolfram alpha is too smart for its own good
\frac{a/b}{1/0} = \frac{a}{b} \frac{0}{1} = 0

Of course writing 1/(1/0) = 0/1 doesn't make any sense, but you can easily imagine a computer program not caring about that when it simplifies fractions.

However that's not the case here specifically

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1/0

1/0 is defined by wolfram alpha as complex infinity (in the complex plane, all the infinities are actually the same, as opposed to in the real case where it's natural to talk about positive and negative infinity). So basically you're asking for (a/b)/infinity and of course when you divide by infinity you get zero.

I think it's a poor job by wolfram alpha to define 1/0 as infinity like that to be honest, but it's probably done for added flexibility in performing other calculations
 
Office_Shredder said:
It could be wolfram alpha is too smart for its own good
\frac{a/b}{1/0} = \frac{a}{b} \frac{0}{1} = 0

Of course writing 1/(1/0) = 0/1 doesn't make any sense, but you can easily imagine a computer program not caring about that when it simplifies fractions.

However that's not the case here specifically

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1/0

1/0 is defined by wolfram alpha as complex infinity (in the complex plane, all the infinities are actually the same, as opposed to in the real case where it's natural to talk about positive and negative infinity). So basically you're asking for (a/b)/infinity and of course when you divide by infinity you get zero.

I think it's a poor job by wolfram alpha to define 1/0 as infinity like that to be honest, but it's probably done for added flexibility in performing other calculations

I agree with everything you said. But shouldn't we stop and say 1/0 is impossible. Stop the presses!

I checked on other calculators as well. like a google search and my personal calculator. It must be a computation thing.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
47
Views
6K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
3K
Back
Top