MrOlai:


Mr BODMAS! Sorry! Go back to school!

i dy sch o bros we all learning here. Prove 2 me that 0/0 =1 and let me back down 2 u. so we saying 10/2=5 and (10*0)/(2*0) = 5 ........... Pls help me prove these or correct me where i'm wrong because i tot that (10*0)/(2*0) = 0. HELP me out here.

MrOlai:


Mr BODMAS! Sorry! Go back to school!

i dy sch o bros we all learning here. Prove 2 me that 0/0 =1 and let me back down 2 u. so we saying 10/2=5 and (10*0)/(2*0) = 5 ........... Pls help me prove these or correct me where i'm wrong because i tot that (10*0)/(2*0) = 0. HELP me out here.

jstriker442:
i get u nw my friend u saying (10-10) would give a value not equal to zero, but can be approximated to zero. I.e 2 say maths makes assumptions. And if i have 2 mangoes and i throw 2 away, do i have some approximations left Approximations are made when d value is too small and is negligible in the calculations used. So u finding the distance from planets, and u get some million light years and fractions. These fractions could represent km u knw, but it can be approx since we dealing with sumthin large. Nw y do we have milli and micro quantities. These aim @ precise calculations where needed. Nw ans these; hw many zero's are in '1',,,,,,,, hw many 0000000000.1 are in 1,,,,, 10-10= ,,,,,,,, 10.000000001-10 = ............... When you say sumthin is undefined, it means cant have a sane value kind off i.e cant be represented. if 000000000000000.1 = 0 then multiply both sides of the equation with (10^20) if you get zero on both sides i'd leave ma sch nw and come learn 4rm you. And have it in mind both sides must be equal.

How many zeros are in 1? As many

I.E 1.0000000000000000000000000..... I'm sure u ve heard the slang "as useless as the 0 after a decimal point"......lol

Mili and micro quantities are not the end of measurement. Ur calculator can even help u.....solve 1/1000 using calculator and keep tapping the ans key, u'll see ur figures getting slimmer and slimmer (approaching Zero) until ur calc lands on 0. So what measurement measures that? Isn't it rather "out of scale"?


Undefined can be represented. Google for more info.


10^20 is not within human scale in the first place......so why multiply that with something within reach to prove a point?


In my example, I used 1 x 10^ -30 dividing itself to give 1. That's close to zero, but who knows how many more negative powers are there to be filled....


Before we dive into meta-physics, please my friend, 0/0 can take any form

(10-10)/ (10-10) are have similar items in the bracket and can be treated as a whole without solving each of their contents first.


Let's not drag this further.....seek advice from your lecturers or google more. I appreciate your contribution thus far too. Cheers!

jstriker442:
i dy sch o bros we all learning here. Prove 2 me that 0/0 =1 and let me back down 2 u. so we saying 10/2=5 and (10*0)/(2*0) = 5 ........... Pls help me prove these or correct me where i'm wrong because i tot that (10*0)/(2*0) = 0. HELP me out here.

Log1 =0 (law of logarithm)

Therefore

0/0 = log 1 / log 1 = 1

Are u satisfied?


Mathematics is wide and vast my friend..........we are learning everyday. Ok?

Onliie:
i will prove the op wrong once and for all

on the line when he said (10 + 10) (10 - 10)/10 (10-10)

he cut (10 - 10)/ (10 - 10)and remains (10 + 10)/10

well you can't do that, if (10 -10)/(10 - 10) = 1, then you already assume 0/0 = 1 (since 10 - 10 = 0).
if you assume 0/0 = 1, then 0/0 cannot be 2.

Finally d first person to see what I said already. Said this but noticed no one commented on it.don't want to actually think it was because no one understood my point.
In trying to prove 0/0=2 ,op was already assuming 0/0 = 1 by cancelling like he did.he has already faulted himself.tanx again,#respect

brytandre:



Okay then.


As for the reverse equation. If u really studied physics and maths at tertiary level (at 200level or above).....you will know that reversing all he has done is simply it!

I.E 2 = 20/10.......isn't it?

20/10 = (10+10)/10........are we there?

Now multiply both numerator and denominator by (10-10)..........still there?

20/10 = (10+10) (10-10) / 10(10-10)......u get it?

Expanding the equation


20/10 = 10^2 - 10^2 / 10^2 - 10^2

2= 20/10 = 0/0.......proved!


What he did is Cummutative......very correct!


Thanks.

Since I luv maths, I smiled at seeing this.but like I said abt d initial proof,by multiplying both numerator n denominator by (10-10),u are already assuming that (10-10)/(10-10) which is 0/0 equals 1. This actually is d error in both proof(op's and urs). U can't b tryn to prove dat 0/0=2 n u re already using 0/0=1 to do that. Secondly on d op's proof,is it proper for a maths student to cancel out zero from numerator n denominator?
Just gently go try these points wit an open mind and u will get wat I mean cos I can see u re gud at maths.tanx

brytandre:



Log1 =0 (law of logarithm)

Therefore

0/0 = log 1 / log 1 = 1

Are u satisfied?


Mathematics is wide and vast my friend..........we are learning everyday. Ok?

una jst dy cancel out without checking for feasibility. Ma calc says log1/log1 = math error. Because if log1 is already = 0, then hw do u cancel zero to giv 1. Sti the same mistake he made. This is simply error in thinking. You ar jst trying 2 prove your point and thats not reasonable. How many zeros can you find in a zero. My friend zero is undefined i.e cannot be placed in value.

Joe82834:

Since I luv maths, I smiled at seeing this.but like I said abt d initial proof,by multiplying both numerator n denominator by (10-10),u are already assuming that (10-10)/(10-10) which is 0/0 equals 1. This actually is d error in both proof(op's and urs). U can't b tryn to prove dat 0/0=2 n u re already using 0/0=1 to do that. Secondly on d op's proof,is it proper for a maths student to cancel out zero from numerator n denominator?
Just gently go try these points wit an open mind and u will get wat I mean cos I can see u re gud at maths.tanx

abeg help me talk to these guys b4 they fail exams thinking they are smart.

brytandre:




How many zeros are in 1? As many

I.E 1.0000000000000000000000000..... I'm sure u ve heard the slang "as useless as the 0 after a decimal point"......lol

Mili and micro quantities are not the end of measurement. Ur calculator can even help u.....solve 1/1000 using calculator and keep tapping the ans key, u'll see ur figures getting slimmer and slimmer (approaching Zero) until ur calc lands on 0. So what measurement measures that? Isn't it rather "out of scale"?


Undefined can be represented. Google for more info.


10^20 is not within human scale in the first place......so why multiply that with something within reach to prove a point?


In my example, I used 1 x 10^ -30 dividing itself to give 1. That's close to zero, but who knows how many more negative powers are there to be filled....


Before we dive into meta-physics, please my friend, 0/0 can take any form

(10-10)/ (10-10) are have similar items in the bracket and can be treated as a whole without solving each of their contents first.


Let's not drag this further.....seek advice from your lecturers or google more. I appreciate your contribution thus far too. Cheers!

bro maths is purely physical and even without indebt knowledge we shud be able 2 add and subtract. What do you mean by human scale, ever heard of light years ?? ......... U saying 10^-30 is within human scale, buh 10^20 is not........ Stop tinking outside the box my friend, this is simple maths. Jst understand that when zero is a denominator, equation undefined. If there is a digit after the decimal point, no matter the zeros b4 it, its not equal to zero but can be approx. Depending on the calculation. Zero CANNOT divide to give a value. Thanks man i see you thinking buh dnt think too far bro.

calculator123:
if b=a then a-a in the formula ewuald zero chikina

Maybe you didn't follow the example I gave. Suppose p+q=1; 2x^2-x+4=0 is same as 2x^2-px-qx+4=0.
If the able is true then that is true also.

No, this is not valid. First, division by zero is undefined. We can stop right there if we like. But further, in the fourth line of the "answer," (10-10)/(10-10) is taken to equal 1 (as it is cancelled out). But as 10-10=0, this means that 0/0=2 is a contradiction of this assumption. This is another hole in the argument.
Neville Fogarty (2012)

In algebra It is generally regarded among mathematicians that a natural way to interpret division by zero is to first define division in terms of other arithmetic operations. Under the standard rules for arithmetic on integers , rational numbers, real numbers , and complex numbers, division by zero is undefined. Division by zero must be left undefined in any mathematical system that obeys the axioms of a field. The reason is that division is defined to be the inverse operation of multiplication . This means that the value of a /b is the solution x of the equation bx = a whenever such a value exists and is unique. Otherwise the value is left undefined. For b = 0, the equation bx = a can be rewritten as 0x = a or simply 0 = a. Thus, in this case, the equation bx = a has no solution if a is not equal to 0, and has any x as a solution if a equals 0. In either case, there is no unique value, so is undefined. Conversely, in a field, the expression is always defined if b is not equal to zero. The concept that explains division in algebra is that it is the inverse of multiplication. For example, since 2 is the value for which the unknown quantity in is true. But the expression requires a value to be found for the unknown quantity in But any number multiplied by 0 is 0 and so there is no number that solves the equation. The expression requires a value to be found for the unknown quantity in Again, any number multiplied by 0 is 0 and so this time every number solves the equation instead of there being a single number that can be taken as the value of 0/0. In general, a single value can't be assigned to a fraction where the denominator is 0 so the value remains undefined (see below for other applications). 0/0 is known as indeterminate . For more details on this topic, see Mathematical fallacy . It is possible to disguise a special case of division by zero in an algebraic argument,[2] leading to spurious proofs that 1 = 2 such as the following: With the following assumptions: The following must be true: Dividing by zero gives: Simplified, yields: The fallacy is the implicit assumption that dividing by 0 is a legitimate operation with the same properties as dividing by any other number. In calculus At first glance it seems possible to define a /0 by considering the limit of a / b as b approaches 0. For any positive a , the limit from the right is however, the limit from the left is and so the is undefined (the limit is also undefined for negative a ). Furthermore, there is no obvious definition of 0/0 that can be derived from considering the limit of a ratio. The limit does not exist. Limits of the form in which both ƒ (x ) and g (x ) approach 0 as x approaches 0, may equal any real or infinite value, or may not exist at all, depending on the particular functions ƒ and g (see l'Hôpital's rule for discussion and examples of limits of ratios). These and other similar facts show that the expression 0/0 cannot be well-defined as a limit.

The set is the Riemann sphere, which is of major importance in complex analysis . Here too is an unsigned infinity – or, as it is often called in this context, the point at infinity . This set is analogous to the real projective line, except that it is based on the field of complex numbers . In the Riemann sphere, , but is undefined, as is . The negative real numbers can be discarded, and infinity introduced, leading to the set [0, ∞], where division by zero can be naturally defined as a/0 = ∞ for positive a. While this makes division defined in more cases than usual, subtraction is instead left undefined in many cases, because there are no negative numbers. In higher mathematics Although division by zero cannot be sensibly defined with real numbers and integers, it is possible to consistently define it, or similar operations, in other mathematical structures. In the hyperreal numbers and the surreal numbers , division by zero is still impossible, but division by non-zero infinitesimals is possible. In distribution theory one can extend the function to a distribution on the whole space of real numbers (in effect by using Cauchy principal values ). It does not, however, make sense to ask for a 'value' of this distribution at x = 0; a sophisticated answer refers to the singular support of the distribution. In matrix algebra (or linear algebra in general), one can define a pseudo-division, by setting a / b = ab+ , in which b + represents the pseudoinverse of b. It can be proven that if b −1 exists, then b+ = b −1 . If b equals 0, then b+ = 0; see Generalized inverse . Any number system that forms a commutative ring—for instance, the integers, the real numbers, and the complex numbers—can be extended to a wheel in which division by zero is always possible; however, in such a case, "division" has a slightly different meaning. The concepts applied to standard arithmetic are similar to those in more general algebraic structures, such as rings and fields . In a field, every nonzero element is invertible under multiplication; as above, division poses problems only when attempting to divide by zero. This is likewise true in a skew field (which for this reason is called a division ring). However, in other rings, division by nonzero elements may also pose problems. For example, the ring Z/6 Z of integers mod 6. The meaning of the expression should be the solution x of the equation . But in the ring Z /6 Z, 2 is a zero divisor. This equation has two distinct solutions, x = 1 and x = 4, so the expression is undefined. In field theory, the expression is only shorthand for the formal expression ab −1 , where b −1 is the multiplicative inverse of b. Since the field axioms only guarantee the existence of such inverses for nonzero elements, this expression has no meaning when b is zero. Modern texts include the axiom 0 ≠ 1 for fields so that the zero ring is excluded from being a field. In computer arithmetic Most calculators, such as this Texas Instruments TI-86 , will halt execution and display an error message when the user or a running program attempts to divide by zero. Division by zero on Android 2.2.1 calculator shows the symbol of infinity. The IEEE floating-point standard , supported by almost all modern floating-point units , specifies that every floating point arithmetic operation, including division by zero, has a well-defined result. The standard supports signed zero, as well as infinity and NaN (not a number). There are two zeroes: +0 (positive zero ) and −0 ( negative zero ) and this removes any ambiguity when dividing. In IEEE 754 arithmetic, a ÷ +0 is positive infinity when a is positive, negative infinity when a is negative, and NaN when a = ±0. The infinity signs change when dividing by −0 instead. The justification for this definition is to preserve the sign of the result in case of arithmetic underflow. [3] For example, in the single- precision computation 1/( x/2), where x = ±2 −149 , the computation x/2 underflows and produces ±0 with sign matching x , and the result will be ±∞ with sign matching x . The sign will match that of the exact result ±2 150 , but the magnitude of the exact result is too large to represent, so infinity is used to indicate overflow. Integer division by zero is usually handled differently from floating point since there is no integer representation for the result. Some processors generate an exception when an attempt is made to divide an integer by zero, although others will simply continue and generate an incorrect result for the division. The result depends on how division is implemented, and can either be zero, or sometimes the largest possible integer. Because of the improper algebraic results of assigning any value to division by zero, many computer programming languages (including those used by calculators ) explicitly forbid the execution of the operation and may prematurely halt a program that attempts it, sometimes reporting a "Divide by zero" error. In these cases, if some special behavior is desired for division by zero, the condition must be explicitly tested (for example, using an if statement). Some programs (especially those that use fixed- point arithmetic where no dedicated floating- point hardware is available) will use behavior similar to the IEEE standard, using large positive and negative numbers to approximate infinities. In some programming languages, an attempt to divide by zero results in undefined behavior. The graphical programming language Scratch 2 used in many schools returns Infinity or -Infinity depending on the sign of the dividend. In two's complement arithmetic, attempts to divide the smallest signed integer by are attended by similar problems, and are handled with the same range of solutions, from explicit error conditions to undefined behavior. Most calculators will either return an error or state that 1/0 is undefined, however some TI and HP graphing calculators will evaluate (1/0) 2 to ∞. Microsoft Math and Mathematica return ComplexInfinity for 1/0. Maple and Sage return an error message for 1/0, and infinity for 1/0.0 (0.0 tells these systems to use floating point arithmetic instead of algebraic arithmetic).

Joe82834:

Since I luv maths, I smiled at seeing this.but like I said abt d initial proof,by multiplying both numerator n denominator by (10-10),u are already assuming that (10-10)/(10-10) which is 0/0 equals 1. This actually is d error in both proof(op's and urs). U can't b tryn to prove dat 0/0=2 n u re already using 0/0=1 to do that. Secondly on d op's proof,is it proper for a maths student to cancel out zero from numerator n denominator?
Just gently go try these points wit an open mind and u will get wat I mean cos I can see u re gud at maths.tanx

U strike me as a very calm and understanding person.

Now see this trick with the simple arithmetic


6/2 = 3 holds that 2x3 = 6....right?

0/1 = 0 holds that 1x0 = 1 ...right?


0/0= i (where i = -infinity to +infinity) holds that 0 x i = 0 .....isn't it?

E.g if I have 0/0 = 2 holds that 0 x 2 = 0, or 0/0 = 10 holds that 0 x 10 = 0.

Do u now see what the UNDEFINED is trying to say? It is not confusing is it?


Now that's where my point is.


I understand the OP is trying to prove 0/0 and in-between referring 0/0=1, leaves room for argument but does it mean he is wrong?


If it appeals to u tho, accept it.... If it doesn't, u can let it go. But the argument of whether it is wrong or right is UNDEFINED

jstriker442:
bro maths is purely physical and even without indebt knowledge we shud be able 2 add and subtract. What do you mean by human scale, ever heard of light years ?? ......... U saying 10^-30 is within human scale, buh 10^20 is not........ Stop tinking outside the box my friend, this is simple maths. Jst understand that when zero is a denominator, equation undefined. If there is a digit after the decimal point, no matter the zeros b4 it, its not equal to zero but can be approx. Depending on the calculation. Zero CANNOT divide to give a value. Thanks man i see you thinking buh dnt think too far bro.

Ok, let's think in this realm. Lol

There is an obvious fallacy in his work (0/0=1) no doubt, which can make for an invalid argument as seen in comments made so far


Mathematicians don't wanna make a mess of saying since 0/0=2 and 0/0=10 then 2 = 10.......hence the UNDEFINED, meaning "use it at ur own discretion and face the consequence"


But it's fun what he did anyways.


And I respect ur stance.



If it appeals to u, accept it...if it doesn't just let him be. Mathematics need to proceed beyond wat is written already


N.B: don't get upset by anyone's remarks and don't provoke either, let's have fun learning

brytandre:



Ok, let's think in this realm. Lol

There is an obvious fallacy in his work (0/0=1) no doubt, which can make for an invalid argument as seen in comments made so far


Mathematicians don't wanna make a mess of saying since 0/0=2 and 0/0=10 then 2 = 10.......hence the UNDEFINED, meaning "use it at ur own discretion and face the consequence"


But it's fun what he did anyways.


And I respect ur stance.



If it appeals to u, accept it...if it doesn't just let him be. Mathematics need to proceed beyond wat is written already


N.B: don't get upset by anyone's remarks and don't provoke either, let's have fun learning

bro i respect u pass, i argue alot so i cant jst get provoked easily. Like i said we all learnin and i think i learnt a thing or two 4rm u. U too much.

I need not be quoted on this:

Dear OP,

In the real sense, zero is nothing, 0/0 is more nothing........so getting "something" out of "nothing" is not entirely comfortable to humans (unless it's something spiritual)


But I do admire ur creativity here, and though it has fallacy, it's strictly at ur discretion.


If ever there'll be a study into "TIME TRAVEL", maybe 0/0 will come in hand, but sorry, humans are too busy trying to survive


Thanks for post. Cheers!

hey check this out too.

if x=y
x-y=y-y
x-y=0

divide by x-y

(x-y)/(x-y)= 0

hence
1=0

mathematically 1+1=2 and from the above 0=1

so,
0+0=2

hence

0=2.

brytandre:



U strike me as a very calm and understanding person.

Now see this trick with the simple arithmetic


6/2 = 3 holds that 2x3 = 6....right?

0/1 = 0 holds that 1x0 = 1 ...right?


0/0= i (where i = -infinity to +infinity) holds that 0 x i = 0 .....isn't it?

E.g if I have 0/0 = 2 holds that 0 x 2 = 0, or 0/0 = 10 holds that 0 x 10 = 0.

Do u now see what the UNDEFINED is trying to say? It is not confusing is it?


Now that's where my point is.


I understand the OP is trying to prove 0/0 and in-between referring 0/0=1, leaves room for argument but does it mean he is wrong?


If it appeals to u tho, accept it.... If it doesn't, u can let it go. But the argument of whether it is wrong or right is UNDEFINED

Yea yea.indeterminate, undefined..........u re ryt.it only shows it could be anything.and op has a point.only problem was using 0/0=1 prove 0/0=2.
OK let's play with numbers a bit.since 0/0 is 2, let's say (10+10)(10-10)/10(10-10). Let's cancel out d 10-10 from d numerator and denominator and write 2 (since op has proved it is so).it gives ((10+10)2)/10=20(2)/10=4.again u see wat it leads to.but then every good maths guru knows u don't cancel 0 from d numtr and denrmtr as in other numbers.but its all fun.
Would be nice if sm1 creates a thread where ppl upload serious word problems n other teasers in maths so ppl go flex d brain here small

ozodigboo:

You are the one that doesn't know basic algebra.
a^2 - b^2 = [ a + b ] [ a - b ]

where a^2 - b^2 is '' a squared minus b squared.''
So, expand the brackets and solve.

SEE OLODO AND U WILL BE ARGUING

in this case is a=b so this rule done apply

samopeyemi:
The steps seem to be quite logical.
When you prove in maths, you manipulate figures as you like, as long as your steps follow basic maths principles. It is not a must dat you express the numerator and denominator same way (or is dir any mathematical rule backing such?).

Although from existing knowledge 0/0 =infinity, so to say.
I actually saw d proof few years ago on an Indian Facebook Page for engineering students

3²-3² = 0 , a-a=0 but a-b=?

it works on different unknowns only

totally wrong....... 0/0 is undefined

Joe82834:

Yea yea.indeterminate, undefined..........u re ryt.it only shows it could be anything.and op has a point.only problem was using 0/0=1 prove 0/0=2.
OK let's play with numbers a bit.since 0/0 is 2, let's say (10+10)(10-10)/10(10-10). Let's cancel out d 10-10 from d numerator and denominator and write 2 (since op has proved it is so).it gives ((10+10)2)/10=20(2)/10=4.again u see wat it leads to.but then every good maths guru knows u don't cancel 0 from d numtr and denrmtr as in other numbers.but its all fun.
Would be nice if sm1 creates a thread where ppl upload serious word problems n other teasers in maths so ppl go flex d brain here small

Exactly. I had fun tho. Will be on the look out for another mathematical (or statistical) thread.

Acekidc4:


That's some hell of a Logical thinking there!! But Shouldn't 0+0=1??

nooo...the way you should whorship god on saturday,not on sunday.....

What he wrote is %. Percentage symbol n not. Zero over zero

adewaletb3:
So_fucking wrong. Why would you prove like a goat

nickydof:



@emekachimek, stop disgracing yourself on social media. The person you are quoting has done justice to your inefficiency. Tell him/her thank you and stop making more noise. Can't believe this And you could be a graduate º˚˚˚ºO!

So u believed that shit! Sorry, You wasted your father's school fees. Obviously, you are a jambite

[quote author=brytandre post=33599970]


10x10-10x10 = 10(10-10).... He didn't even need to include the step. It is correct Sir! [/quot

You are right

Hello
i am miss Jenny i am looking for friendship
please contact me now so you can know more
about me with my pics
jernnifermohamed@gmail.com