₦airaland Forum

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

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:
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?

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:
lyk i said, get a paper, pen and calculator and solve some examples. Ur aguement is that anything divided by itself is = 1. ...... If that is so, y not jst say 0/0 = 1. My friend get a pen and paper then prove that (10-10)/(10-10) = 1....... Then get back @ me.

Easy already.


0/0 can also equal 1....remember it is undefined (can take any value)


Every other person take note of this: lemme take this to another dimension



U can use a calculator


0.0000000000000000000000000000001/0.0000000000000000000000000000001 = 1


But If u add both, ur calculator will tell u 0....some may represent it in standard form (e.g 1 x 10^ -30), add any number and u'll see it will give u that same number cos it 'll seemingly approx the standard form number to zero.



Y?


The concept of 0 as a number denotes it is a very very small number so close to being "non-existent"......even within 1second, there are uncountable micro-seconds to the next. The dreams u av at night happens some few seconds before u wake up fully, yet it would seem u've been dreaming all night long.




So u could have 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002/0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 = 2 ............e.t.c


To really understand how all these works, u need to have studied Maths in higher institution (200level and above).


So if we say 0/0 is undefined and could be any number, its simply two very large standard form numbers concelling out each other to produce a number equal or less than or greater than 1.


Quote me if u think otherwise.

brunofarad:
I could still remember stating vividly that my assertion was not open for debate.

Yes I studied physics and mathematics remains an integral part of the physics coursework..

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.

jstriker442:
jst lyk i said, u can ignore or better still skip bodmas if and only if the equation when simplified of expanded is equal e.g (100)-(100)/(200) = (25-5)5-(25-5)5 / (25-5)10 = 5-5/10. ........ Since (5*4) is common, it cancels out. So my friend MATHS=BODMAS. If u can prove a solution that is not backd by BODMAS, i'd lyk 2 see it, buh as it stands, if we expand, canceling out (10-10)/(10-10) = 1 is incorrect but from my own equation above, (25-5)/(25-5) = 1. The terms used are knwn so i tink resolution b4 cancelation. And 10+10(0)/10(0) = ....can u cancel out the zeros in this case Jst try and read this through get ur calculator, pen and paper out. We'd all learn sumtin new.

My friend. He has already done the expansion using complete the square method

100-100 = 10(10+10) - 10 (10+10)

= (10+10) (10-10)

Or (10+10) x (10-10)

If u solve this quadratic equation, it will get u back to 100-100.


From ur equation (25-5)5 - (25-5)5
If am to express it further, will give

(25-5) x (5-5)......can u see that both 5's outside the bracket has been enclosed in one themselves? It is at this stage u can cancel out.

(25-5) x (5-5) / (25-5) 10 = (5-5)/10


BODMAS was not applied, was it?

d4Dave:
I admire the reasoning of that young fellow. However, difference of two squares doesn't hold here because
(a^2-b^2)=(a+b)(a-b)
but
(a^2-a^2)
CANNOT AND WILL NEVER BE EQUAL TO
(a+a)(a-a)
because the CONVERSE, ie the reverse is not true; it will give 0 and not (a^2-a^2)
Hence, his/her hypothesis is ABSOLUTELY wrong.

And y can't it

In Maths the equality sign is a strict symbol

when a=b, in algebra, b=a...(Unless in geometric or mapping situations thereabout)

simple arithmetic 100-100= 0, means 0 can also be 100-100....or whatever u imagine it to be (5-5, 10-10, 2-2) so the reverse is the case.

I'm sure u know 1 can also be 100^0 (indices).....and conversely

So please. He is right.

brunofarad:
This is numerical illusion at play.

The OP violated the rule of diffrence of two squares.
Now watch it.........






If there exists a,b such that a not equal to b

Then

a^2 - b^2 =( a + b )(a - b )

When a = b

Then

a^2 - b^2 = a^2 - a^2 = b^2 - b^2 = 0

hence diffence of two squares holds IFF

a is not equal b

Did u notice IFF. In mathematics it is voked as if and only if.

Do guys watch closely at the OP's steps

10^2 - 10^2. Cannot be treated as diffrence of two squares.


This is same procedure normally used by illusionists for performance.

Using what you already know....to bring about what you DON'T know


Through an unknown bypass realm....

Most times this unknown realms are usually what you rightly know but being used to manipulate your mind in the not so right medium.

This is not open for debate

Its a fact !

Listen,observe and be silent

I'm very interested in knowing where u got this your definition bro. Stating categorically with IFF that a must not be equal to b.


The fact that u even used the word "Rules" makes for a raised brow, did u study Maths?

Definition should have been used instead, and please, in as much as I hate to write this, there is no such rule. Difference of two squares has no constraint. Sorry. His use of it is valid

Google it if u av doubts. Thanks

tohero:
@all.

I wonder why some people who claimed to have studied mathematics said the steps are wrong. Common, they are right. The only wrong thing that made everything wrong is that...

He started out with ASSUMPTIONS

Therefore it is a MUST he proves that the CONVERSE is true.

Now, can the person who proved that go ahead to proof that 2 = 0/0?

Mind you, it is not by reversing the steps, it is about using the opposite of the assumption he had used earlier.

Real Analyst in the room should understand this better.



Good 9t

I tip a hat to u sir. Correctly said. His efforts needs further modifications from experts in the room. That's wat I'm here to see

fio:
One last thing....pls I Will like to know the name of ur school.

Proudly Kogi State University, Anyigba.

beto2gbaski:
Guys, there is a reason its called difference of two squares and not difference of same squares.
a^2 - b^2 = (a+b) (a-b)
a^2 - a^2 = (a+a) (a-a) = 0.
a at any given time cannot be equal to b or d rule is void.
The genius simply disobeyed the rules when he figured in that principle to his proof.

Or u didn't get the English

Difference is the -

Two squares: a^2 and b^2


Difference of two squares is a^2 - b^2


E.g what's the difference of 4 and 2. Soln: 4-2 = 2.


So there is no ruling disputing whether they could be equal or not. They are just squares. So a can be equal to b. Thanks

logica:
I think you are tired and need to take a rest; better yet go and sleep. This is the first time I am mentioning BODMAS on Nairaland; talk less of this thread.

Sorry @skyope.

Apologies bro, fast fingers

jstriker442:
i get you my friend buh that bracket already gives 0 from what he did, is sayin (10-10)/(10-10) = 0/0 = 1 ........ Can u see wer the fault is nw. When u simplify the numerator and denominator by opening brackets, it is supposed to be equal to when you collect any terms and bracket them up. But in this case its not so.

I understand u well.

From a BODMAS point of view, that bracket MUST be opened, and it ruins everything

But from an algebraic point of view, leave it as it is (since it has a like term) and cancel out.

That's wat he did. I argued with @logica that BODMAS is negligible in some maths, can u see wat I mean? Would it help in this case? Not at all

jstriker442:
mayopic vision is your problem (10+10)(10-10) / 10(10-10) = . Maybe we where taught different bodmas, buh mine says remove the brackets b4 dividing and if you do so, u'd get 0/0. Pls go back 2 your elementary mathematics and leave maths 4 sane people till u fully understand and tink like a learned person.

BODMAS AGAIN?!


See it this way bro: (a+b)(a-b)/a(a-b)....(where a=b)

Do we need BODMAS before we identify a common term on both numerator and denominator to cancel out (a-b)?

Besides:

It is (a+b) x (a-b) / a(a-b) so u can cancel out


Now compare to (10+10)x(10-10) / 10(10-10) .....definitely holds that (10-10) can cancel itself out. Thanks

fio:
.




But this has got me seriously reasoning



Then his premise could stand

0/0 = 0.00000000001/0.00000000001 = 2

Don't u think?

This could be applied to science and tech if looked into critically. Okay lemme stop before I take it too far. Lol

Man why are u complicating things, ok I don't have a degree in maths or applied maths. But I have degrees in common sense. Strong man don't sweat the small stuff

A degree in maths is uncommon sense, I'm sure u know that too. Well was talking to M.sc holder in applied maths, waiting on his response

logica:
Sorry; sarcasm is not your forte.

U again?...oops

Sorry. Looks like we ve had enough exchanges today. Sarcasm not intended please, just excited at the sight of this thread. Hope u understand

brytandre:
To show that 0/0 = 2

Proof: let {X:X perfect squares from 0 to infinity}, {Y:Y perfect squares from 0 to infinity}

Proved: Then 0/0 = (X+Y) (X-Y) / X (X-Y) = 2 for all X=Y or UNDEFINED (I.e other values) for X not equal to Y

Duduconfirm:
As much as I would say the guy is A genius. Why must he represent 0 as 100 - 100. It could be 5 - 5 let him try another number that's not a perfect square to see if he'll arrive at 2. If he doesn't, then he's wrong

brytandre:
To show that 0/0 = 2

Proof: let {X:X perfect squares from 0 to infinity}, {Y:Y perfect squares from 0 to infinity}

Proved: Then 0/0 = (X+Y) (X-Y) / X (X-Y) = 2 for all X=Y or UNDEFINED (I.e other values) for X not equal to Y

Does that help? It has to be a perfect square for his premise to hold, otherwise it is null

logica:
It isn't even a proof really (in the strictest of terms).

If you are going to do this:

(10 - 10) / (10 - 10) = 1 (the premise on which his "proof" stood)

then there was no need for the whole rigmarole. You might as well do this:

0 / 0 = 1

Even at this point:

(10 + 10) * (10 - 10)
------------------------
10 * (10 - 10)

where he cancelled out the (10 - 10), why not do this:

0    (10 + 10)      0
- = ----------   *  -
0        10         0

Obviously now, the equation is not even making any sense. But let us further make more nonsense out of nonsense:

If you cancelled out the 0/0 on both sides:

1 = (10 +10) / 10 or 1 = 2

That makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

If he presented it the way u just did, maybe I'll form ignorance and be screaming "BODMAS" too. Sorry, it doesn't make sense

RedArrow:
Graph of 0.0000000000000092 does exist. After all it's a real number (as in, the number 0.0000000000000092 can be found on the real line)

Then his premise could stand

0/0 = 0.00000000001/0.00000000001 = 2

Don't u think?

This could be applied to science and tech if looked into critically. Okay lemme stop before I take it too far. Lol


But this has got me seriously reasoning

RedArrow:
Great to know that. I also have MSc in Applied Mathematics, the rule applied to the numerator is kool {diff of 2 squares). But the fact that the person is working on the REAL PLANE makes the whole prove absurd. The REAL PLANE does not accept zero as denominator. The graph will form an asymptote. For example, take a limit of a fraction as the denominator tends to zero, you will either have -ve infinity or +ve infinity which confirms what you said that the answer will be btw infinity to +infinity meaning undefined.

Thanks a lot bro. I understand u well....it's gonna be graphically difficult to represent, hence the frustration of the early Mathematician to simply say UNDEFINED. To be sincere, I'm seeing something like this for the first time and I'm really happy to know someone is willing to THINK!

Note; 0.0000000000000092 can also be termed 0....... this can be represented graphically can't it?

fio:
And 10^2 - 10^2 equals 0

That's where he is coming from remember? It's a mathematical proof ok. He is saying 0=10^2-10^2 = (10+10)(10-10)
That's the idea

asoderock:
Its tricky, but I stand by my position.

putting in parenthesis has not cancelled out the (-) sign.

Now this will make sense if you try to work back.
Q. Evaluate -(10^2)

A. -(10^2)= -10^2 =-10x-10 =100 ...You have to open the bracket first, that is the rule of mathematics.

If you did quadratic equatiom in school, u will know he doesn't need to do any -10^2 .

a^2 - b^2 = (a+b)(a-b) for all a=b or a not equal to be

So 10^2 - 10^2 = (10+10)(10-10) . Very very correct!

fio:
Not possible. You have to use math rule of BODMAS. And when you do that.
Then; (10+10)(10-10) never equals 10^2-10^2.

My guy, that's simple quadratic equation na.

(10+10)(10-10)= 10(10+10)-10(10+10)

= 10^2+10^2-10^2-10^2

At this point he took out the two middle terms only (I.e 10^2-10^2) by subtracting them

= 10^2 - 10^2

So it is correct!

To show that 0/0 = 2

Proof: let {X:X perfect squares from 0 to infinity}, {Y:Y perfect squares from 0 to infinity}

Proved: Then 0/0 = (X+Y) (X-Y) / X (X-Y) = 2 for all X=Y or UNDEFINED (I.e other values) for X not equal to Y

RedArrow:
Do you have idea of complex mathematics? Pls do, it will help you to understand that whenever 0 appears @the denominator, the expression is undefined.

I do have an idea cos I'm a graduate of Mathematical sciences. UNDEFINED in terms of zero being denominator signifies that the answer gotten will be betw -infinity to +infinity. The answer could be any number depending on what the person chooses it to be.

In this case, if you say 0/0= 1, u are correct (provided u can prove it) just as he said 0/0= 2. But there will be certain constraint. As for his, you can only use perfect squares. Any other number will not get u 2.

Yujin:
And this my friend is where he failed. Look closely and you will see that a=b which means that this theorem cannot be used here. This is where his proof failed mathematically.

There is no exclusive rule that says if a=b these does not apply. It is correct as long as the equation is satisfied (I.e (a+b)(a-b)=0)

skyope:
Haba, you 4 add complex numbers join na.

BODMAS accounts for all of that. Not just detailed. It's a method to teach, simple and clear. This does not make it negligible. It makes it broad and simple. What level do you think I am sef? hehehe. Dont answer that. You will seek to abuse, rather than a honest answer.

Ever heard of PEMDAS? Paranthesis, exponential, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction.

I'm sure u haven't ....

They make life simplier, but does this not rate higher or prove more useful than ur BODMAS?

You can google PEMDAS if u doubt me. Cheers!

scait:
which school you go?

Was the question directed to me?

skyope:
You are a mathematician. Prove you thoughts with maths. Show me how BODMAS is negligible. Enough of english.

E.g in Indices and Logarithm (for ur level)......BODMAS does not account for powers (squares and square roots), exponentials, constants.......lemme not go further


I don't need to solve anything here, do I? I'm sure u get it: Bracket of division multiplication......bla bla bla, the ones I mentioned up is not accounted for and that's y I said it is NEGLIGIBLE!

skyope:
O Really. Can you spare me just 1 example that makes BODMAS less applicable. Note, BODMAS is not a principle nor theorem nor corollary nor definition. It is just a way to teach maths

If u see maths, u go fit stand so? Guess what, I don't think so........BODMAS is negligible before u make other non-maths student get the wrong idea

skyope:
BODMAS is as elementary? I will disagree. But i do not argue. I understand the temptation to reduce it to elementary considering it is taught in primary school.

But whether na rocket science o, or trig. BODMAS is king. You cannot break it and get away with it "easily".

No need to argue. Have u ever done proofs before e.g show that ....bla bla bla

The Answer is given already but u have to work out the procedures. Yes BODMAS comes in place......but on the reverse angle (I.e working from Answer back to question), what do u think becomes of ur BODMAS?