Page 2 of 3 [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Oct 2010, 3:43 pm

Woodpecker wrote:
Divide by zero and the answer is both plus infinity and minus infinity as a graph of 1 / x when plotted closer and closer to zero gets towards plus and minus infinity.

By the way I like cubedemon6073's avatar, it looks like a unit cell of CaF2 or UO2 (uranium dioxide's unit cell has the same shape as calcium flouride)


Division by 0 is undefined in the quotient ring of rational, real and complex numbers. There is no division by 0.

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Oct 2010, 3:44 pm

Jono wrote:
Woodpecker wrote:
Divide by zero and the answer is both plus infinity and minus infinity as a graph of 1 / x when plotted closer and closer to zero gets towards plus and minus infinity.

By the way I like cubedemon6073's avatar, it looks like a unit cell of CaF2 or UO2 (uranium dioxide's unit cell has the same shape as calcium flouride)


When you take the limit, yes depending on when whether zero is approached from the left hand side or the right hand side. What didn't mention though is that when you divide zero by itself, that can be made to approach any number you wish, depending on whatever the function is that you're taking the limit of. So 0/0 is completely indeterminate.


Lim (x ->0) 1/x does not exist.

ruveyn



Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

24 Oct 2010, 3:45 pm

cubedemon6073 wrote:
Chronos wrote:
cubedemon6073 wrote:
My father was asking why couldn't undefined or no value on the cartesian plane be a value in itself? He was asking why couldn't undefined be a defined value in itself? He was asking why couldn't nothing be a form of something in itself? I just showed him the contradiction of what he was saying. That was my point. He was trying to say something was defined and undefined at the same time which is a contradiction. Otherwise, you guys are right about everything you all said.


There are a few reason why it's not given a value.

In respect to the cartesian coordinate system, which is a simple x y coordinate system...example: go x steps over and y steps up

y expresses a distance from the origin along the y axis.

If we had some curve y = 20/x and we said that undefined is going to mean 10, we'd end up with 20/0=10

Meaning if we were at 0 on the x axis our curve would be 10 units up on the y axis. But that's not true because there is already a value, that if you divide 20 by, you will get 10. That value is 2. 20/2 = 10

So in that sense we cannot arbitrarily assign an actual value to undefined. They're all taken.

In practical applications, undefined takes the form of a concept.

What if, for example, I had some strange guitar amplifier which had a gain that could be modeled as

A = 10/R where R was some resistor (this actually is not how guitar amplifiers are really modeled but it explains my point)

What if I wanted to know what happens when I make the resistance of that resistor smaller and smaller and smaller.

On my graphing calculator, I can see my gain, A, will get bigger and bigger and bigger.
I can't actually really get to R=0 because I'm using wires and all wires have some resistance, but I can see that as my resistance R approaches 0, my gain theoretically approaches infinity.

In the real world, even if an amplifier could be described by that model, other things would eventually come into play to prevent the gain from actually becoming infinite, like the fact that we can't have 0 resistance with wires, or other physical characteristics would cause the model to break down, but in other areas, such as astrophysics, a similar model might be applicable for very large values before the model breaks down.

So in understanding the nature of things, we really use the equations in a qualitative way to get a feel for how things act.














.


Chronos, do you mind if I add what you said to my writings at some point. I will give you credit.


You are welcome to, but perhaps a better example than a guitar amplifier should be found because I'm sure there are other things that actually do follow an a/x type law where x goes to zero.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

24 Oct 2010, 4:04 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Jono wrote:
Woodpecker wrote:
Divide by zero and the answer is both plus infinity and minus infinity as a graph of 1 / x when plotted closer and closer to zero gets towards plus and minus infinity.

By the way I like cubedemon6073's avatar, it looks like a unit cell of CaF2 or UO2 (uranium dioxide's unit cell has the same shape as calcium flouride)


When you take the limit, yes depending on when whether zero is approached from the left hand side or the right hand side. What didn't mention though is that when you divide zero by itself, that can be made to approach any number you wish, depending on whatever the function is that you're taking the limit of. So 0/0 is completely indeterminate.


Lim (x ->0) 1/x does not exist.

ruveyn


That's right because infinity is not included in the set of real or complex numbers. However, infinity is included in the set of extended complex numbers, in which by definition z/0 = infinity (positive and negative infinity are the same point that set), z/infinity = 0, while 0*infinity, 0/0 and infinity + infinity are still left undefined.



Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

24 Oct 2010, 4:17 pm

Jono wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Jono wrote:
Woodpecker wrote:
Divide by zero and the answer is both plus infinity and minus infinity as a graph of 1 / x when plotted closer and closer to zero gets towards plus and minus infinity.

By the way I like cubedemon6073's avatar, it looks like a unit cell of CaF2 or UO2 (uranium dioxide's unit cell has the same shape as calcium flouride)


When you take the limit, yes depending on when whether zero is approached from the left hand side or the right hand side. What didn't mention though is that when you divide zero by itself, that can be made to approach any number you wish, depending on whatever the function is that you're taking the limit of. So 0/0 is completely indeterminate.


Lim (x ->0) 1/x does not exist.

ruveyn


That's right because infinity is not included in the set of real or complex numbers. However, infinity is included in the set of extended complex numbers, in which by definition z/0 = infinity (positive and negative infinity are the same point that set), z/infinity = 0, while 0*infinity, 0/0 and infinity + infinity are still left undefined.


Ah the extended complex plain....how I love thee.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Oct 2010, 8:03 pm

Jono wrote:

That's right because infinity is not included in the set of real or complex numbers. However, infinity is included in the set of extended complex numbers, in which by definition z/0 = infinity (positive and negative infinity are the same point that set), z/infinity = 0, while 0*infinity, 0/0 and infinity + infinity are still left undefined.


Infinity so defined is NOT a number. It does not have the algebraic properties of a number. What infinity is in this context is part of a one or two point compactification of the complex numbers taken as a topological space.

ruveyn



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,960

25 Oct 2010, 5:50 pm

Quote:
0*D = X But this statement is never true. We have already determined that 0 times anything must equal 0.


Here is another angle as to what my father was saying which is a contradiction in logic. He agrees that 0 times anything must equal 0 but what about 0 times non-anything. He was saying that we need to find something that is not possible to go into D but which must go into D. This would be a impossible secnario. He was saying to ditch the cartesian plane altogether and use a non existant value on a non-existent plane which would be an existent plane. Only my father can come up with this stuff lol lol. :lol: I, know it makes my head spin as well. You guys have no argument from me. I was just showing what he was saying was contradictory.



lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,798
Location: Somerset UK

26 Oct 2010, 10:18 am

Rather than playing with words, you may find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_projective_plane


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

26 Oct 2010, 11:57 am

lau wrote:
Rather than playing with words, you may find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_projective_plane

Ugh. That was on my topology midterm.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

26 Oct 2010, 3:13 pm

lau wrote:
Rather than playing with words, you may find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_projective_plane


Topological compactification of the Cartesian plane by adding a line of infinity, how interesting.



lau
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,798
Location: Somerset UK

27 Oct 2010, 1:57 pm

Infinity is (or rather, can be) your friend.


_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer


pakled
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

28 Oct 2010, 12:04 am

I remember in the old days of DOS, that division by 0 was a 'bad thing'...;)

I just think of 0 as a placeholder...


_________________
anahl nathrak, uth vas bethude, doth yel dyenvey...


yellowtamarin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Sep 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,763
Location: Australia

28 Oct 2010, 12:28 am

If you divide something by something it's like saying "how many Xs are in Y?"

Divide 20 by five: How many fives are in 20? Four.
Divide 20 by zero: How many zeros are in 20? None (because there is something, which means there's no nothing)
Divide zero by zero: How many 0s are in 0? One! (because there really is nothing)

Entirely incorrect but it amused my slightly.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

28 Oct 2010, 2:42 pm

ruveyn wrote:
dyingofpoetry wrote:
I've always defined n/0 as infinity.


Infinity in the context of the real or complex number system is NOT a number.

It does not have the algebraic properties of a number.

ruveyn


More to the point: Yes, you'd think that any given number divided by zero would be "infinity", but then if you work backwards to recreate your given number and multipy infinity by zero you dont get your given number. You get zero ( an infinite amount nothing is still nothing). As opposed to say: dividing ten by two to get five, and then recreating ten by multiplying five by two.

So it just doesnt work.

Funny though: you can multiply by zero, add, and subtract zero, but you cant divide by it. Never thought about that before.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,960

28 Oct 2010, 4:31 pm

yellowtamarin wrote:
If you divide something by something it's like saying "how many Xs are in Y?"

Divide 20 by five: How many fives are in 20? Four.
Divide 20 by zero: How many zeros are in 20? None (because there is something, which means there's no nothing)
Divide zero by zero: How many 0s are in 0? One! (because there really is nothing)

Entirely incorrect but it amused my slightly.


I would've never thought of it this way.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

29 Oct 2010, 3:38 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
dyingofpoetry wrote:
I've always defined n/0 as infinity.


Infinity in the context of the real or complex number system is NOT a number.

It does not have the algebraic properties of a number.

ruveyn


More to the point: Yes, you'd think that any given number divided by zero would be "infinity", but then if you work backwards to recreate your given number and multipy infinity by zero you dont get your given number. You get zero ( an infinite amount nothing is still nothing).


Incorrect. If infinity is included in your number system, then multiplying zero by infinity would be undefined. You are correct that infinity is not a reciprocal of zero though, since multiplying zero by infinity does not give you 1, the multiplicative identity in both real and complex numbers.