MHB Why is dividing by zero impossible in math?

AI Thread Summary
Dividing by zero is impossible in mathematics because it leads to contradictions. For example, attempting to express a division like 5/0 asks how many zeros fit into 5, which is impossible since adding zeros never reaches 5. When a non-zero number is divided by zero, it results in an undefined value because there is no number that satisfies the equation. In contrast, dividing zero by zero is considered indeterminate since it can equal any number, but lacks a unique solution. Understanding these concepts is crucial, especially in the context of limits in calculus, where different scenarios can yield different outcomes.
mathdad
Messages
1,280
Reaction score
0
We know division by zero is not possible but what is the math reason why it is impossible to divide by zero?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Let's say you wanted to do 5/0, then you're asking "how many 0's are there in 5?"

Well, try adding up 0's until you get to 5...

Hang on, 0 + 0 = 0... If I keep adding 0 we still stay at 0...

How can we ever possibly get to 5?
 
Saying that "\frac{a}{0}= c" is equivalent to "a= 0*c". But 0 times anything is 0 so that would say a= 0.

In fact, some texts make a distinction between \frac{a}{0}, for a non-zero, and \frac{0}{0}. If a\ne 0 then \frac{a}{0}= c, for any number, c, is equivalent to a= 0*c= 0 which is false. There is NO number c that satisfies that so we say it is "undefined" or simply impossible.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, \frac{0}{0}= c is equivalent to 0= 0*c= 0 which <b>is</b> true- but is true for <b>any</b> number c. There is no unique number c such that this is true so we say that it is "undetermined".<br /> <br /> The difference is really only important in "limits". If I am trying to find \lim_{x\to a}\frac{f(x)}{g(x)} and find that g, separately, goes to 0 while f goes to a non-zero number, I have the case \frac{a}{0} for a non-zero: there is no such limit. But If both f and g go to 0 then there still might be a limit. For example, if f(x)= x^2- 9 and g(x)= x- 3 both f(3)= 0 and g(3)= 0. But for x <b>not</b> equal to 0, \frac{x^2- 9}{x- 3}= \frac{(x- 3)(x+ 3)}{x- 3}= x+ 3 so \lim_{x\to 3}\frac{x^2- 9}{x- 3}= \lim_{x\to 3} x+ 3= 6.<br /> <br /> - - - Updated - - -<br /> <br /> Saying that "\frac{a}{0}= c" is equivalent to "a= 0*c". But 0 times anything is 0 so that would say a= 0.<br /> <br /> In fact, some texts make a distinction between \frac{a}{0}, for a non-zero, and \frac{0}{0}. If a\ne 0 then \frac{a}{0}= c, for any number, c, is equivalent to a= 0*c= 0 which is false. There is NO number c that satisfies that so we say it is "undefined" or simply impossible.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, \frac{0}{0}= c is equivalent to 0= 0*c= 0 which <b>is</b> true- but is true for <b>any</b> number c. There is no unique number c such that this is true so we say that it is "undetermined".<br /> <br /> The difference is really only important in "limits". If I am trying to find \lim_{x\to a}\frac{f(x)}{g(x)} and find that g, separately, goes to 0 while f goes to a non-zero number, I have the case \frac{a}{0} for a non-zero: there is no such limit. But If both f and g go to 0 then there still might be a limit. For example, if f(x)= x^2- 9 and g(x)= x- 3 both f(3)= 0 and g(3)= 0. But for x <b>not</b> equal to 0, \frac{x^2- 9}{x- 3}= \frac{(x- 3)(x+ 3)}{x- 3}= x+ 3 so \lim_{x\to 3}\frac{x^2- 9}{x- 3}= \lim_{x\to 3} x+ 3= 6.<br /> <br /> - - - Updated - - -<br /> <br /> Saying that "\frac{a}{0}= c" is equivalent to "a= 0*c". But 0 times anything is 0 so that would say a= 0.<br /> <br /> In fact, some texts make a distinction between \frac{a}{0}, for a non-zero, and \frac{0}{0}. If a\ne 0 then \frac{a}{0}= c, for any number, c, is equivalent to a= 0*c= 0 which is false. There is NO number c that satisfies that so we say it is "undefined" or simply impossible.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, \frac{0}{0}= c is equivalent to 0= 0*c= 0 which <b>is</b> true- but is true for <b>any</b> number c. There is no unique number c such that this is true so we say that it is "undetermined".<br /> <br /> The difference is really only important in "limits". If I am trying to find \lim_{x\to a}\frac{f(x)}{g(x)} and find that g, separately, goes to 0 while f goes to a non-zero number, I have the case \frac{a}{0} for a non-zero: there is no such limit. But If both f and g go to 0 then there still might be a limit. For example, if f(x)= x^2- 9 and g(x)= x- 3 both f(3)= 0 and g(3)= 0. But for x <b>not</b> equal to 0, \frac{x^2- 9}{x- 3}= \frac{(x- 3)(x+ 3)}{x- 3}= x+ 3 so \lim_{x\to 3}\frac{x^2- 9}{x- 3}= \lim_{x\to 3} x+ 3= 6.<br /> <br /> - - - Updated - - -<br /> <br /> Saying that "\frac{a}{0}= c" is equivalent to "a= 0*c". But 0 times anything is 0 so that would say a= 0.<br /> <br /> In fact, some texts make a distinction between \frac{a}{0}, for a non-zero, and \frac{0}{0}. If a\ne 0 then \frac{a}{0}= c, for any number, c, is equivalent to a= 0*c= 0 which is false. There is NO number c that satisfies that so we say it is "undefined" or simply impossible.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, \frac{0}{0}= c is equivalent to 0= 0*c= 0 which <b>is</b> true- but is true for <b>any</b> number c. There is no unique number c such that this is true so we say that it is "undetermined".<br /> <br /> The difference is really only important in "limits". If I am trying to find \lim_{x\to a}\frac{f(x)}{g(x)} and find that g, separately, goes to 0 while f goes to a non-zero number, I have the case \frac{a}{0} for a non-zero: there is no such limit. But If both f and g go to 0 then there still might be a limit. For example, if f(x)= x^2- 9 and g(x)= x- 3 both f(3)= 0 and g(3)= 0. But for x <b>not</b> equal to 0, \frac{x^2- 9}{x- 3}= \frac{(x- 3)(x+ 3)}{x- 3}= x+ 3 so \lim_{x\to 3}\frac{x^2- 9}{x- 3}= \lim_{x\to 3} x+ 3= 6.<br /> <br /> - - - Updated - - -<br /> <br /> Saying that "\frac{a}{0}= c" is equivalent to "a= 0*c". But 0 times anything is 0 so that would say a= 0.<br /> <br /> In fact, some texts make a distinction between \frac{a}{0}, for a non-zero, and \frac{0}{0}. If a\ne 0 then \frac{a}{0}= c, for any number, c, is equivalent to a= 0*c= 0 which is false. There is NO number c that satisfies that so we say it is "undefined" or simply impossible.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, \frac{0}{0}= c is equivalent to 0= 0*c= 0 which <b>is</b> true- but is true for <b>any</b> number c. There is no unique number c such that this is true so we say that it is "undetermined".<br /> <br /> The difference is really only important in "limits". If I am trying to find \lim_{x\to a}\frac{f(x)}{g(x)} and find that g, separately, goes to 0 while f goes to a non-zero number, I have the case \frac{a}{0} for a non-zero: there is no such limit. But If both f and g go to 0 then there still might be a limit. For example, if f(x)= x^2- 9 and g(x)= x- 3 both f(3)= 0 and g(3)= 0. But for x <b>not</b> equal to 0, \frac{x^2- 9}{x- 3}= \frac{(x- 3)(x+ 3)}{x- 3}= x+ 3 so \lim_{x\to 3}\frac{x^2- 9}{x- 3}= \lim_{x\to 3} x+ 3= 6.<br /> <br /> - - - Updated - - -<br /> <br /> Saying that "\frac{a}{0}= c" is equivalent to "a= 0*c". But 0 times anything is 0 so that would say a= 0.<br /> <br /> In fact, some texts make a distinction between \frac{a}{0}, for a non-zero, and \frac{0}{0}. If a\ne 0 then \frac{a}{0}= c, for any number, c, is equivalent to a= 0*c= 0 which is false. There is NO number c that satisfies that so we say it is "undefined" or simply impossible.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, \frac{0}{0}= c is equivalent to 0= 0*c= 0 which <b>is</b> true- but is true for <b>any</b> number c. There is no unique number c such that this is true so we say that it is "undetermined".<br /> <br /> The difference is really only important in "limits". If I am trying to find \lim_{x\to a}\frac{f(x)}{g(x)} and find that g, separately, goes to 0 while f goes to a non-zero number, I have the case \frac{a}{0} for a non-zero: there is no such limit. But If both f and g go to 0 then there still might be a limit. For example, if f(x)= x^2- 9 and g(x)= x- 3 both f(3)= 0 and g(3)= 0. But for x <b>not</b> equal to 0, \frac{x^2- 9}{x- 3}= \frac{(x- 3)(x+ 3)}{x- 3}= x+ 3 so \lim_{x\to 3}\frac{x^2- 9}{x- 3}= \lim_{x\to 3} x+ 3= 6.<br /> <br /> - - - Updated - - -<br /> <br /> Saying that "\frac{a}{0}= c" is equivalent to "a= 0*c". But 0 times anything is 0 so that would say a= 0.<br /> <br /> In fact, some texts make a distinction between \frac{a}{0}, for a non-zero, and \frac{0}{0}. If a\ne 0 then \frac{a}{0}= c, for any number, c, is equivalent to a= 0*c= 0 which is false. There is NO number c that satisfies that so we say it is "undefined" or simply impossible.<br /> <br /> On the other hand, \frac{0}{0}= c is equivalent to 0= 0*c= 0 which <b>is</b> true- but is true for <b>any</b> number c. There is no unique number c such that this is true so we say that it is "undetermined".<br /> <br /> The difference is really only important in "limits". If I am trying to find \lim_{x\to a}\frac{f(x)}{g(x)} and find that g, separately, goes to 0 while f goes to a non-zero number, I have the case \frac{a}{0} for a non-zero: there is no such limit. But If both f and g go to 0 then there still might be a limit. For example, if f(x)= x^2- 9 and g(x)= x- 3 both f(3)= 0 and g(3)= 0. But for x <b>not</b> equal to 0, \frac{x^2- 9}{x- 3}= \frac{(x- 3)(x+ 3)}{x- 3}= x+ 3 so \lim_{x\to 3}\frac{x^2- 9}{x- 3}= \lim_{x\to 3} x+ 3= 6.
 
Great information.

- - - Updated - - -

Say there are 5 people in a particular classroom. They came to class without a pencil. If the principal walks into the classroom and tells me to distribute one pencil per student but I have no pencils, no one will get a pencil. How can I divide a number by nothing? So, number ÷ nothing = undefined.
 
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
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...

Similar threads

Replies
47
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
40
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
3K
Back
Top