First Cause
naturalplastic wrote:
1/2 is one half .
But 1/ 1/2 equals two.
1 over 1/1000,000 is one million.
Dividing one by positive numbers less than one results in multiplying the number one.
So logically dividing one by the tiniest number of all-zero-would yield: infinity.
So 1/0 = infinity.
Then 0/1 obviously equals zero.
So 1/0 X 0/1 would be "infinity times zero".
Which would be...zero.
Not one!
The fallacy is in line 5.
1 / 0 = Infinity only if 1 = infinity.
If 1= cookie then 1/0 = cookie.
I was being slightly tongue in cheek.
You cant divide zero into anything. The answer is not "infinity". The answer would be "indeterminant".
So instead of 'infinity times zero" the final step would "indeterminant times zero".
Which would still be zero!
So the conclusion would be the same.
naturalplastic wrote:
I was being slightly tongue in cheek.
You cant divide zero into anything. The answer is not "infinity". The answer would be "indeterminant".
So instead of 'infinity times zero" the final step would "indeterminant times zero".
Which would still be zero!
So the conclusion would be the same.
You cant divide zero into anything. The answer is not "infinity". The answer would be "indeterminant".
So instead of 'infinity times zero" the final step would "indeterminant times zero".
Which would still be zero!
So the conclusion would be the same.
Indeterminant times zero would be expressed as 0/0 not 1/0.
See how much fun words can be?
If it was just people posting numbers, we wouldn't be even half so entertained.
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
sophisticated wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
I was being slightly tongue in cheek.
You cant divide zero into anything. The answer is not "infinity". The answer would be "indeterminant".
So instead of 'infinity times zero" the final step would "indeterminant times zero".
Which would still be zero!
So the conclusion would be the same.
You cant divide zero into anything. The answer is not "infinity". The answer would be "indeterminant".
So instead of 'infinity times zero" the final step would "indeterminant times zero".
Which would still be zero!
So the conclusion would be the same.
Indeterminant times zero would be expressed as 0/0 not 1/0.
So?
1/0 = 0/0 then.
Doesnt change my point.
naturalplastic wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
I was being slightly tongue in cheek.
You cant divide zero into anything. The answer is not "infinity". The answer would be "indeterminant".
So instead of 'infinity times zero" the final step would "indeterminant times zero".
Which would still be zero!
So the conclusion would be the same.
You cant divide zero into anything. The answer is not "infinity". The answer would be "indeterminant".
So instead of 'infinity times zero" the final step would "indeterminant times zero".
Which would still be zero!
So the conclusion would be the same.
Indeterminant times zero would be expressed as 0/0 not 1/0.
So?
1/0 = 0/0 then.
Doesnt change my point.
No it doesn't.
sophisticated wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
I was being slightly tongue in cheek.
You cant divide zero into anything. The answer is not "infinity". The answer would be "indeterminant".
So instead of 'infinity times zero" the final step would "indeterminant times zero".
Which would still be zero!
So the conclusion would be the same.
You cant divide zero into anything. The answer is not "infinity". The answer would be "indeterminant".
So instead of 'infinity times zero" the final step would "indeterminant times zero".
Which would still be zero!
So the conclusion would be the same.
Indeterminant times zero would be expressed as 0/0 not 1/0.
So?
1/0 = 0/0 then.
Doesnt change my point.
No it doesn't.
So "zero into one" is not indeterminate?
It isnt "one". That fer sure.
naturalplastic wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
I was being slightly tongue in cheek.
You cant divide zero into anything. The answer is not "infinity". The answer would be "indeterminant".
So instead of 'infinity times zero" the final step would "indeterminant times zero".
Which would still be zero!
So the conclusion would be the same.
You cant divide zero into anything. The answer is not "infinity". The answer would be "indeterminant".
So instead of 'infinity times zero" the final step would "indeterminant times zero".
Which would still be zero!
So the conclusion would be the same.
Indeterminant times zero would be expressed as 0/0 not 1/0.
So?
1/0 = 0/0 then.
Doesnt change my point.
No it doesn't.
So "zero into one" is not indeterminate?
It isnt "one". That fer sure.
0/1=0
1/0=1
sophisticated wrote:
0/1=0
1/0=1
1/0=1
hmmmm...
multiply the two results
1 x 0 = 0 (one nothing is nothing)
yet any number divided by itself equals 1 e.g. 32.7/32.7 = 1
so...
1/0 x 0/1 simplifies to 0/0 which therefor = 1
even though multiplying the two results = 0
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
0/1=0
1/0=1
1/0=1
hmmmm...
multiply the two results
1 x 0 = 0 (one nothing is nothing)
yet any number divided by itself equals 1 e.g. 32.7/32.7 = 1
so...
1/0 x 0/1 simplifies to 0/0 which therefor = 1
even though multiplying the two results = 0
This is false.
1x0=1
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
0/1=0
1/0=1
1/0=1
hmmmm...
multiply the two results
1 x 0 = 0 (one nothing is nothing)
yet any number divided by itself equals 1 e.g. 32.7/32.7 = 1
so...
1/0 x 0/1 simplifies to 0/0 which therefor = 1
even though multiplying the two results = 0
This is false.
1x0=1
You can look at it both ways.
0x1: Sitting in front of you is one emptiness, one nul space, one nothingness. You are multiplying emptiness by one. Even if you multiply nothingness by five, you still have nothing.
Flip it around.
1x0: If you have zero ones, you have zero.
Or look at it another way. I'm going to put 1 cookie in front of you zero times. If I put a cookie in front of you two times, then you would have two cookies. But if I'm going to put one cookie in front of you zero times, then I'm not actually putting any cookies in front of you. So you have zero cookies.
Lastly, do it on a calculator. It comes up with zero.
_________________
I'm not blind to your facial expression - but it may take me a few minutes to comprehend it.
A smile is not always a smile.
A frown is not always a frown.
And a blank look rarely means a blank mind.
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
0/1=0
1/0=1
1/0=1
hmmmm...
multiply the two results
1 x 0 = 0 (one nothing is nothing)
yet any number divided by itself equals 1 e.g. 32.7/32.7 = 1
so...
1/0 x 0/1 simplifies to 0/0 which therefor = 1
even though multiplying the two results = 0
This is false.
1x0=1
You can look at it both ways.
0x1: Sitting in front of you is one emptiness, one nul space, one nothingness. You are multiplying emptiness by one. Even if you multiply nothingness by five, you still have nothing.
Flip it around.
1x0: If you have zero ones, you have zero.
Or look at it another way. I'm going to put 1 cookie in front of you zero times. If I put a cookie in front of you two times, then you would have two cookies. But if I'm going to put one cookie in front of you zero times, then I'm not actually putting any cookies in front of you. So you have zero cookies.
Lastly, do it on a calculator. It comes up with zero.
This is where the fallacy is.
Because we start the expression with 1 cookie .. it means we have 1 cookie .. THEN we multiply the cookie 0 times . How many cookies do we have now ? 1 cookie.
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
0/1=0
1/0=1
1/0=1
hmmmm...
multiply the two results
1 x 0 = 0 (one nothing is nothing)
yet any number divided by itself equals 1 e.g. 32.7/32.7 = 1
so...
1/0 x 0/1 simplifies to 0/0 which therefor = 1
even though multiplying the two results = 0
This is false.
1x0=1
Are you TRYING to be funny?
Or do you really believe that?
One times zero equals one?
ROTFLMFAO!
So-are you saying that 365 times zero equals 365?
Okay...you have nothing. Then you multiply that nothing by one. So you have one of nothing. Which is nothing.
Zero.
AND you could multiply your nothing by ANY postive number- three hundred and sixty five- so you have 365 parcels of nothing-which would still be..nuthin!
365X0 = 1x0 = 0.
By your logic 365 times zero would be 365!
Here is where someone should post the video from that old broadway show (Porgy and Bess? Oklahoma?) in which the guy sings "I got plenty of nothin' , and nuthin's plenty for me" to illustrate the concept for you that "plenty of nuthin'" is still nothing!
Lol!
P.S.
Okay I just read your last post.
you're saying that if you multiply a cookie zero times - you get one cookie.
Zero is NOT a synonym for the number one.
Multiplying a cookie by zero means that you make the cookie disappear. So you have zero cookies.
If you multiply it by one- you have one cookie.
naturalplastic wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
0/1=0
1/0=1
1/0=1
hmmmm...
multiply the two results
1 x 0 = 0 (one nothing is nothing)
yet any number divided by itself equals 1 e.g. 32.7/32.7 = 1
so...
1/0 x 0/1 simplifies to 0/0 which therefor = 1
even though multiplying the two results = 0
This is false.
1x0=1
Are you TRYING to be funny?
Or do you really believe that?
One times zero equals one?
ROTFLMFAO!
So-are you saying that 365 times zero equals 365?
Okay...you have nothing. Then you multiply that nothing by one. So you have one of nothing. Which is nothing.
Zero.
AND you could multiply your nothing by ANY postive number- three hundred and sixty five- so you have 365 parcels of nothing-which would still be..nuthin!
365X0 = 1x0 = 0.
By your logic 365 times zero would be 365!
Here is where someone should post the video from that old broadway show (Porgy and Bess? Oklahoma?) in which the guy sings "I got plenty of nothin' , and nuthin's plenty for me" to illustrate the concept for you that "plenty of nuthin'" is still nothing!
Lol!
P.S.
Okay I just read your last post.
you're saying that if you multiply a cookie zero times - you get one cookie.
Zero is NOT a synonym for the number one.
Multiplying a cookie by zero means that you make the cookie disappear. So you have zero cookies.
If you multiply it by one- you have one cookie.
Why don't you show me how to make a cookie disappear .
sophisticated wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
0/1=0
1/0=1
1/0=1
hmmmm...
multiply the two results
1 x 0 = 0 (one nothing is nothing)
yet any number divided by itself equals 1 e.g. 32.7/32.7 = 1
so...
1/0 x 0/1 simplifies to 0/0 which therefor = 1
even though multiplying the two results = 0
This is false.
1x0=1
Are you TRYING to be funny?
Or do you really believe that?
One times zero equals one?
ROTFLMFAO!
So-are you saying that 365 times zero equals 365?
Okay...you have nothing. Then you multiply that nothing by one. So you have one of nothing. Which is nothing.
Zero.
AND you could multiply your nothing by ANY postive number- three hundred and sixty five- so you have 365 parcels of nothing-which would still be..nuthin!
365X0 = 1x0 = 0.
By your logic 365 times zero would be 365!
Here is where someone should post the video from that old broadway show (Porgy and Bess? Oklahoma?) in which the guy sings "I got plenty of nothin' , and nuthin's plenty for me" to illustrate the concept for you that "plenty of nuthin'" is still nothing!
Lol!
P.S.
Okay I just read your last post.
you're saying that if you multiply a cookie zero times - you get one cookie.
Zero is NOT a synonym for the number one.
Multiplying a cookie by zero means that you make the cookie disappear. So you have zero cookies.
If you multiply it by one- you have one cookie.
Why don't you show me how to make a cookie disappear .
I have made countless dozens of oreos disappear in my time. Pecan Sandies too. The trick is to stop yourself from making them disappear!
naturalplastic wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
Narrator wrote:
sophisticated wrote:
0/1=0
1/0=1
1/0=1
hmmmm...
multiply the two results
1 x 0 = 0 (one nothing is nothing)
yet any number divided by itself equals 1 e.g. 32.7/32.7 = 1
so...
1/0 x 0/1 simplifies to 0/0 which therefor = 1
even though multiplying the two results = 0
This is false.
1x0=1
Are you TRYING to be funny?
Or do you really believe that?
One times zero equals one?
ROTFLMFAO!
So-are you saying that 365 times zero equals 365?
Okay...you have nothing. Then you multiply that nothing by one. So you have one of nothing. Which is nothing.
Zero.
AND you could multiply your nothing by ANY postive number- three hundred and sixty five- so you have 365 parcels of nothing-which would still be..nuthin!
365X0 = 1x0 = 0.
By your logic 365 times zero would be 365!
Here is where someone should post the video from that old broadway show (Porgy and Bess? Oklahoma?) in which the guy sings "I got plenty of nothin' , and nuthin's plenty for me" to illustrate the concept for you that "plenty of nuthin'" is still nothing!
Lol!
P.S.
Okay I just read your last post.
you're saying that if you multiply a cookie zero times - you get one cookie.
Zero is NOT a synonym for the number one.
Multiplying a cookie by zero means that you make the cookie disappear. So you have zero cookies.
If you multiply it by one- you have one cookie.
Why don't you show me how to make a cookie disappear .
I have made countless dozens of oreos disappear in my time. Pecan Sandies too. Its often to keep from making them disappear!
This is moving an object and placing it elsewhere.
It has nothing to do with multiplication.
It is subtraction.
You have one oreo in your hand and then you put the oreo in your mouth. How many oreos do you have left in your hand ? None .
1-1=0 (edited) .