Prove me wrong

Prove me wrong
>protip: you can't

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

That's not how orders of operations work, but you already know that.

dividing by zero is not a defined operation, you simply cant do it

either way, anything divisable by zero or multiplied by zero cant be defined so is inherently zero.
Conclusion, OP's a fucking Idiot

As well, multiplying anything by zero results in zero (x * 0 = 0).

So the correct answer is zero. Sorry OP, you have been proven wrong.

>cant be defined
>is inherently zero

Any real number multiplied by 0 is 0, but 7/0 is undefined, and certainly not a real number.

You're wrong too. The result is not zero, there's no answer.

And OP, your theory is very interesting, but there's a mathematical error in page 1, line 1, which invalidates the rest of the paper.

ok then, assign a real number to 7/0

Undefined times 0 is 0

This is classic

it is 1 you fagro
7*0=0
0/0=1

We prove this is false by contradiction.

Let (14/0) * 0 = 14 and (7/0) * 0 = 7, as defined by the OP.

Now, because 0 = 0 +0 it follows that
(7/0)*(0+0) = 7

we apply the distributive property and get
(7/0)*0 + (7/0)*0 = 7
so it follows that
2((7/0)*0) = (14/0) * 0 = 7

This is a contradiction, and therefore OP is a faggot. QED.

>0/0=1

Take your nigger mathematics away from here.

>infinity * zero = seven

operations of the same type are read from left to right. Would be infinite

that would be an infinate amout of nothing.
so it would equal zero

You can't divide by zero dumb fuck

1/10 bait

>pic related
>QED

if x/x = 1
then
0/0 = 1
But because 0 is a special snowflake whole mathematics is fucked

This.

It's not infinity because it's not a limit. Division by 0 is undefined.

And if we allow limits, this is perfectly possible. Let f(x) be (7x + 1) and let g(x) be 1/x. The limit as x approaches infinity for f(x) is infinity, and the limit as x approaches infinity of g(x) is 0. But the limit of (f*g)(x) as x approaches infinity is 7, so infinity * 0 is 7 (it this case).

good

Fuck you, I was on your side. I side with OP now.

I for one agree with OP
The division and multiplication negates each other out which essentially states:
7=7

Undefined faggot you don't even math, that operation is like hey what do tampon French fries taste like THEY FUCKING DON'T FAGGOT IT'S UNDEFINED

Ayyyyyy

UNDEFINED
both operators have the same weight so it's impossible to tell which to apply first. Also PEMDAS, BIDMAS, ect... won't help as it's really P E MD AS and B I DM AS where they are grouped together by weight

I dont know about you or your PEMDAS/BIDMAS stuff but anything you multiple and then divide or otherway around always ends up the same.

Clearly not, because it's not true for 0. The proof is already in this thread, it leads to contradictions.

actually no, you're right, it's zero as division is clear in this. I'm so used to the other image being posted

underrated post

provd

This. It's not defined. But, if we applied limits it would be equal 7. But we're not doing limits, so it's 0/0, undefined.

(7/0) . (0/1) = 0/0.

...But that dosen't even work if you replaced the sixes with any other number.

you would multiply the seven and 0 first. than divide 0 by 0. so its either 0 or one

who said you could do that?

good b8

if a whole is split into 0 parts, and you take 7 of those 0 parts. you have 7, zero sized parts. 7, 0 sized parts multiplied by 0 -> gives you 0, zero sized parts of a whole. the equation is equal to 0.

But you can't turn a whole into 0 parts.

x/x = 1 when x =/= 0, you fucking tard. It's not "zero being a special snowflake" it's basic mathematics.

by that same logic you cant use 0 in any equation at all. zero is nothing, but you can say 1 + 0.

That's not true. You can not take something, or take it 0 times. You can't turn something into 0 parts though. None of this matters anyway, because mathematics isn't concerned with silly analogies.

numbers are a division of a whole onto a single dimension number line, which is the basis of mathematics. its not an analogy. The basic principal exists with an infinite division of the whole into an infinite and negative infinite array of numbers. which includes a division of zero in the middle.

Division in a field is multiplication by the multiplicative inverse. 0 has no multiplicative inverse because for all x in the field 0 * x ≠ 1. Here 0 and 1 are the additive and multiplicative identity, respectively.

Undefined.

it would work if you used limits and replaced 0 with a variable

>lim a -> 0 ( a * 7/a)

Sup Forums's brightest minds.

that is a rule calculators must follow due to linear processing and lack of abstract programming to truly define zero. logically, zero exists as an empty division of a whole. just like 1 would be a single division of some whole.

No, it's the actual definition of division. Just like subtraction is defined by addition by the additive inverse.

My answer is an absolute number of fucks given equaling zero

that's just dumb. have you ever seen the dictionary define the word no as "not yes"

On a more serious note:
You can define a division by zero, if you manage it to not contradict with any other law of math.

Something similar is managed by defining the square root of -1.

nice paper

teoretically 7/0 should give ∞, which then multiplied by 0 should give 0

For example you would need to give up wanting the real numbers to be a field (is that the right word, i dont know english math)

infinity times 0 is not defined

exactly, the abstraction of adding an imaginary number line to a single dimensional number line allows this. just the the abstraction of defining zero as zero parts of a whole

infinity is not a number you can make calculations with at all
7/0=error not infinity

>teoretically

>teoretically

Kek

wrong again, you can't use it for calculations, as it'll just absorb, undefine or indeterminate everything else. you can get it as a result though, from divergent series, divergent integrals, limits, etc

>7/0=error
lol

Eleminating the zeros gives you 7 times 7 left in that calculation. And 7 times 7 is 47, so you are all wrong.

>anything [...] multiplied by zero cant be defined
Hey wats 7×0?

...

Why can't Christians define Christianism?

>inb4 not understanding limits

Yes, field is the English term.

Not even "theoretically" in the sense of a limit because the limit of 7/x as x goes to infinity does not exist.

0 = 0/1
(7*0)/(0*1) = 0/0
0/0 != 7

as x goes to 0*

this isnt how math works faget

Suppose division by zero is a valid operation.

Let;
$ a = b
Thus;
$ a^2 = ab
Subtracting b^2 from each side;
$ a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
Thus;
$ (a - b)(a+b) = b(a-b)
Note that if a=b, a-b=0
Dividing through by a-b (zero), we obtain;
$ a + b = b

>CONTRADICTION 1
Let a = b equal a non-zero integer n
$ n + n = n
Thus;
$ 2n = n
Subtracting n from each side;
$ n = 0
But having let n be a non-zero integer, we immediately arrive at a contradiction, proving that our initial assumption of division by zero being a valid operation to be FALSE.

>CONTRADICTION 2 & 3
Letting n be a non-negative positive integer;
$ 2n = n
Thus;
$ n = n / 2 < n by postive Euclidean division

However, this immediately implies that both; n is not equal to itself, and that there exists no least positive integer which is a direct contradiction to the Well Ordering Principle.

>CONTRADICTION 4
Letting a = b = 1
$ 1 + 1 = 1

This is a direct contradiction to the proof presented in Principia Mathematica that develops proof through well over several hundred pages that 1 + 1 = 2. Since that proof requires only the assumption that different numbers are unique and distinct from one another (a purely philosophical question), it is mathematically airproof. Thus wholly, formally, and undeniably BTFOing OP's silly thread.

it's 0 not 7 faggot

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero
autism is off the scale with this OP

>Divisible by zero

literally the term "undefinded" ... zero is technically a number

7 / 0 by itself is undefined but in this case because of the extra * 0
7 / 0 = infinity (essentially)
and
infinity * 0 = indeterminate form

Math is illogic itself

Op is right. stop being edgy and trying to be Einsteins fags

EVERYBODY STFU
THIS IS NOW A SPIDERMAN THREAD
>inb4 no pic
I'm on my phone

This is not the way it works. Let me show you the arithemtics of it
>(7)/(0)*0=7
>(7*0)/(0)=7
>(0)/(0)=7
This doesn't work at all. If it was some sort of function where you take the limit of it as it goes towards some number (a) you could use L'Hospitals rule.

But this is just pure stupidity.
The only answer to the pic is that it is undefined.
If you reconstruct it so it is the equation below, the only answer is x=Ø, the empty quantity.
>(7)/(0)*x=7

TL;DR:
>OP is a faggot

Anything multiplied by zero is well defined. It is equal to zero.
Anything divisible by zero is not defined, hence it is NOT equal to zero.
>Says something is not defined
>Defines the answer to be zero
You are fucking stupid.

Anything divided by itself is 1 though

ctrl + f (indeterminate form)
1 right answer

Not 0.

Observe any real number a divided by 0.
What that means is, how many times can we divide a by zero and get an answer. We can do that infinitely many times. Should the answer be infinity then? No, because that leaves 1=2, as has been shown many times before.

In short, you can't divide by zero in any cases.
Let me show you how.
>Let a=b
>a*a=a*b
>a*a-b*b=a*b-b*b
>(a+b)(a-b)=b*(a-b)
>a+b=b
>2b=b
>2=1
Here, by dividng with (a-b), which is zero, it shows that 2=1, which is not true.
So you can't divide by zero.

Also, observe the basic equation below.
>a/b=c
>a=cb
If b is equal to zero and a and c are real numbers, it says that every number is equal to zero, since zero times any real number is equal to zero.

So you can't divide by zero. Stop being stupid.