0/0 is 0 and so is 1/0

[Anonymous No.11730279]

Disprove me via contradiction without using limits.

[Anonymous No.11730330]

incels never have sex, (you) never have sex, therefore you are an incel

[Anonymous No.11730349]

We've already had this thread, it's undefined
MODS

[Anonymous No.11730357]

>>11730349
You're a jackass, the thread never reached a conclusion. Is 0*undefined 0????

[Anonymous No.11730671]

>>11730279
0 = 0*2
so
0/0 = 2
therefore
0 = 2

[Anonymous No.11730689]

>>11730357
No, 0 * undefined is NaN.

[Anonymous No.11730699]

>>11730671
My proof shows that any number other then 0 causes contradictions. It's a proof by contradiction.

[Anonymous No.11730742]

>>11730699
Your image is incoherent garbage. No one could ever prove you wrong because you're not even wrong. You haven't fucking said anything.

8/10 bait; I couldn't resist

[Anonymous No.11730793]

>>11730742
How is it wrong? Where is it incoherent? It seems pretty coherent and sensicle to me.

[Anonymous No.11731196]

>>11730330
Your statement is not logically correct. Incels never have sex does not imply that all people who never have sex are incells and OP could be such a person. You should have stated it in the following way:
People who never have sex are incels. (You) never have sex. Therefore you are an incel.
Now gtfo brainlet.

[Anonymous No.11731259]

>>11730279
There are a lot of problems with your proof, The first immediate problem is that you say 0 * (1 / 0) = 0 / 0, but neither of these things are defined. Furthermore, you distribute 1 / 0 across (0 + 0), but this only works for things inside a relevant ring structure (we can assume these numbers live in the real field), but 1 / 0 is explicitly not in the field.
So you're already assuming you can do arithmetic with this form when you haven't shown it's well defined nor verified it upholds any of the ring properties.

[Anonymous No.11731289]

>>11731259
When I say neither is defined, I mean to say that we can’t do these sorts of equalities on these undefined quantities. You must give a reasonable definition for 0/0 and show that such a definition is consistent with ring and field structure (ie, that it is well defined and nothing breaks). Otherwise, you’re trying to resolve equality between indeterminate forms and undefined quantities, which we have no way of tackling.

[Anonymous No.11731326]

>>11730357
>>11730279
You're a lying retard. The conclusion reached was that your little algebraic experiment is logically consistent and can thus not be disproven, however it was also concluded that this experiment is not practical at all.

[Anonymous No.11731359]

>>11731326
So the conclusion was i am correct, but its not helpful?
>>11731259
I don't need to take the 0 out of 0/0, i could have just done (0+0)/0 and done the replacement thing

[Anonymous No.11731375]

>>11731359
Exactly, that was the conclusion. You're free to explore such ideas and it may lead to stuff like imaginary numbers, but most of the time it turns out to not have much use at all.

[Anonymous No.11731404]

>>11730279
how can you disprove a definition ?

[Anonymous No.11731419]

>>11730279
Here it goes, [math]a/b[/math] is by definition [math]ab^{-1}[/math], therefore [math]0/0 = 0 \cdot 0^{-1}[/math] so you just need to find [math]0^{-1}[/math]. [math]0^{-1}[/math] it is defined as the *unique* number [math]x[/math] such that [math]0 \cdot x = 1[/math]; but wait! For all [math]x\in\mathbb{R}[/math] it happens that [math]0\cdot x = 0[/math] therefore [math]0^{-1}[/math] doesn't exist. Huh.

[Anonymous No.11731443]

>>11731359
Not really, since you're assuming
1) 0 has a unique multiplicative inverse
2) we can distribute such an inverse
Both of these things need proof.

[Anonymous No.11731527]

>>11731443
No, I am assuming that 0/0 could potentially be any number that times 0 is 0. I assume that it does NOT have a unique multiplicative inverse.

[Anonymous No.11731548]

>>11731527
then it's not consistent with the rest of math, because 0/0 implies taking multiplicative inverse of the denominator