Division by 0

This is a discussion on Division by 0 within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Let's assume such a number exists...call it a. How far can we get? What rules of division and multiplication do ...

  1. #31
    Fear the Reaper...
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    625
    Let's assume such a number exists...call it a. How far can we get? What rules of division and multiplication do we need to meet?

    That would be quite impractical. If you're to work it out, changing the division in real numbers in such a way would create two absorbant elements in real mulitplication, which would then lead to having to reformulate many of the other division properties. That would also lead to restating what a positive and negative number would be, which would then make you...get my point ?

    You can go ahead and define such a number "a", but unless you find practical use for it, and allow it to coincide with the other properties defined in regular arithmetic, I doubt it will be wide-spread and accepted.

    Even at that, I doubt a ring will ever exist in which division by 0 is defined, simply due to the fact that no one needs to know what a number divided into 0 distinct entities is equal to. The same cannot be said about negative roots and logarithms, whose necessity were the prime motive for the creation of complex numbers.

    When they find a motive for 3/0 to have a result, then the appropriate result will be given. Until then, it will be undefined.
    Teacher: "You connect with Internet Explorer, but what is your browser? You know, Yahoo, Webcrawler...?" It's great to see the educational system moving in the right direction

  2. #32
    Crazy Fool Perspective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,640
    not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet (damn thread is too long to read) but:

    >>I was thinking about why you can't divide anything by 0 (except 0).

    You can't divide 0 by 0 either. Its undefined as well.

  3. #33
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    Quote Originally Posted by Happy_Reaper
    Even at that, I doubt a ring will ever exist in which division by 0 is defined,
    It doesn't. Proof:
    z is the zero in the ring.
    u is the one in the ring.
    u/z = u*z', where z' is the multiplicative inverse to z.
    z * z' = u
    but by definition z*'z=z
    There exist no z' so that zz'=u.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  4. #34
    Fear the Reaper...
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    625
    Makes sense. I guess I should've seen that. This very same proof should satisfy all the doubtful out there. You cannot divide anything by 0 because division as a binary relation has no way of defining it in the first place.
    Teacher: "You connect with Internet Explorer, but what is your browser? You know, Yahoo, Webcrawler...?" It's great to see the educational system moving in the right direction

  5. #35
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    465
    The person who invented zero probably had plenty of problems with it. Talking about zero it gets really philosophical. Some people would say 0 is the measure of nothing, but how can you measure nothing, so if nothing is being measured than it must be something. So people need to look at it as perceptual nothingness(what we percieve to be nothing). So lets say 0 is the measure of nothing or a value assigned to nothing(sounds pretty messed up) so 5/nothing would surely be 5(taking something and not splitting it then you have the same thing as before). As for 0/0 nothing cant go into nothing at all so I don't see how it could possibly be infinite. How many times does it go in? None at all, thus the answer is 0 or nothing. Your teachers may not even care what you think so if they act negatively when you bring it up it would be better to put up with their arrogancy rather than flunk. Mathematicians, teachers, and scholars have probably adressed this problem and decided to teach it one way everywhere, but questioning is human nature and I think its best you point out them being wrong.
    Last edited by cerin; 10-04-2005 at 04:49 PM.
    My computer is awesome.

  6. #36
    Unregistered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Antarctica
    Posts
    341
    that's what limits are for anyway, you can't calculate x/y when y = 0, so you calculate the limit of x as y approaches 0.

  7. #37
    Frequently Quite Prolix dwks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,046
    >>I was thinking about why you can't divide anything by 0 (except 0).

    You can't divide 0 by 0 either. Its undefined as well.
    Exactly. Here's why:

    If 0/0 = x, then x*0 = 0. So x can be anything. 0/0 can be anything. Rather than let it be anything, it's undefined.
    dwk

    Seek and ye shall find. quaere et invenies.

    "Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- Alan Perlis
    "Testing can only prove the presence of bugs, not their absence." -- Edsger Dijkstra
    "The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing." -- John Powell


    Other boards: DaniWeb, TPS
    Unofficial Wiki FAQ: cpwiki.sf.net

    My website: http://dwks.theprogrammingsite.com/
    Projects: codeform, xuni, atlantis, nort, etc.

  8. #38
    Unregistered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Antarctica
    Posts
    341
    what I never understood is how x^0 = 1. I'm sure there's some proof for it out there, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

  9. #39
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    Again because its defined as such. (of course 0^0 is the exception)

    What that defination does is allows for a smooth transition from postive exponents to negative exponents:

    x^3 = x^3 / 1
    x^2 = x^2 / 1
    x^1 = x^1 / 1
    x^0 = x / x
    x^-1 = 1 / x^1
    x^-2 = 1 / x^2
    x^-3 = 1 / x^3

  10. #40
    Fear the Reaper...
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    625
    Actually, 0^0 is also equal to 1.
    Teacher: "You connect with Internet Explorer, but what is your browser? You know, Yahoo, Webcrawler...?" It's great to see the educational system moving in the right direction

  11. #41
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Happy_Reaper
    Actually, 0^0 is also equal to 1.
    Actually no its not. Its indeterminate. Most calculators and even computer implmentation take a shortcut and if the exponent is 0 returns 1.

  12. #42
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    0^0 is undefined, but
    lim x->0 (x^x) exists and is equal to 1

    Here's the graph of Re(x^x):
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  13. #43
    Unregistered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Antarctica
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by Sang-drax
    0^0 is undefined, but
    lim x->0 (x^x) exists and is equal to 1

    Here's the graph of Re(x^x):
    that's good enough for me then

  14. #44
    aoeuhtns
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by Sang-drax
    0^0 is undefined, but
    lim x->0 (x^x) exists and is equal to 1

    Here's the graph of Re(x^x):
    That only approaches the point of discontinuity from a particular direction, though. Exponentiation is a multivariable function. Let f be a function defined by f(x,y) = x^y, where x and y are real numbers and x >= 0.

    lim x->0 [f(x,0)] = 1.
    lim y->0 [f(0,y)] = 0.

    Hence lim (x,y)->(0,0) [f(x,y)] is undefined.

    0^0 = 1 is usually more useful, though, especially with binomial expansion. To say (a + b)^n = (the sum for i = 0 to n of (n choose i) * a^i * b^(n - i)) is rather elegant, but it implies that 0^0 = 1.

  15. #45
    carry on JaWiB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,972
    "Think not but that I know these things; or think
    I know them not: not therefore am I short
    Of knowing what I ought."
    -John Milton, Paradise Regained (1671)

    "Work hard and it might happen."
    -XSquared

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Get jiffies?
    By pgzh in forum Linux Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-17-2008, 10:30 AM
  2. pseudo code for division
    By svaidya in forum C Programming
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 01:48 PM
  3. Problem with modus division.
    By stillwell in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-19-2004, 11:54 AM
  4. modulo 2 division question help
    By shaq8u in forum C Programming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-20-2003, 08:37 AM
  5. Modular Division problem
    By Malek in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-24-2003, 06:08 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21