Why Does 0/0 ≠ 0 When o x o = 0?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lakshmi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Zero
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the expression 0/0 and its relation to multiplication. Participants argue that since any number multiplied by 0 equals 0, it seems logical to suggest that 0/0 could equal any number, such as 3 or π. However, the consensus is that 0/0 is undefined in arithmetic because assigning it a value leads to contradictions and inconsistencies. The conversation highlights the importance of adhering to mathematical rules to avoid confusion. Ultimately, 0/0 remains an indeterminate form that cannot be resolved within standard arithmetic.
lakshmi
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
if o multiplied by o=0
then why 0/0 is not equal to 0
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
lakshmi said:
if o multiplied by o=0
then why 0/0 is not equal to 0

Well, 0 \times 3 = 0 so shouldn't \frac{0}{0}=3?
I know, 0 \times \pi = 0 so \frac{0}{0}=\pi.

The problem is that \frac{0}{0} doesn't work with the existing rules for arithmetic. Picking some value only leads to problems.
 
:smile: :smile: :smile:
excellent humour NateTG :wink:
 
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top