Another proof that dividing by $0$ does not exist — is it right? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)How do you explain to a 5th grader why division by zero is meaningless?Please help I'm in grade 9 and excellent at maths but I keep asking why does it workDoes a negative number really exist?Resource for low level maths explained in high level perspectivesHow to define the operation of division apart from the inverse of multiplication?Non-trivial “I know what number you're thinking of”showing that no repunit is a square - proof verificationProve that between two unequal rational numbers there is another rationalIntuitively, if addition can be interpreted as combining sets, then what can multiplication and division be interpreted as?Multiplicative inverse questionsIs my proof of $sqrt2 + sqrt3 + sqrt5$ is an irrational number valid?Are positive numbers somehow more “fundamental” than negative numbers?
Output the ŋarâþ crîþ alphabet song without using (m)any letters
Problem drawing boxes with arrows in tikZ
Why don't the Weasley twins use magic outside of school if the Trace can only find the location of spells cast?
Super Attribute Position on Product Page Magento 1
How does a Death Domain cleric's Touch of Death feature work with Touch-range spells delivered by familiars?
Echoing a tail command produces unexpected output?
What do you call a phrase that's not an idiom yet?
3 doors, three guards, one stone
Can inflation occur in a positive-sum game currency system such as the Stack Exchange reputation system?
Detect existing key binding before creating one
How widely used is the term Treppenwitz? Is it something that most Germans know?
How to motivate offshore teams and trust them to deliver?
Letter Boxed validator
Withdrew £2800, but only £2000 shows as withdrawn on online banking; what are my obligations?
Why was the term "discrete" used in discrete logarithm?
What does the "x" in "x86" represent?
Why did the IBM 650 use bi-quinary?
I am not a queen, who am I?
Why is "Captain Marvel" translated as male in Portugal?
Is above average number of years spent on PhD considered a red flag in future academia or industry positions?
Why is "Consequences inflicted." not a sentence?
How to find all the available tools in macOS terminal?
Is there a concise way to say "all of the X, one of each"?
LaTeX gives error undefined control sequence table
Another proof that dividing by $0$ does not exist — is it right?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)How do you explain to a 5th grader why division by zero is meaningless?Please help I'm in grade 9 and excellent at maths but I keep asking why does it workDoes a negative number really exist?Resource for low level maths explained in high level perspectivesHow to define the operation of division apart from the inverse of multiplication?Non-trivial “I know what number you're thinking of”showing that no repunit is a square - proof verificationProve that between two unequal rational numbers there is another rationalIntuitively, if addition can be interpreted as combining sets, then what can multiplication and division be interpreted as?Multiplicative inverse questionsIs my proof of $sqrt2 + sqrt3 + sqrt5$ is an irrational number valid?Are positive numbers somehow more “fundamental” than negative numbers?
$begingroup$
Ok I am in grade 9 and I am maybe too young for this.
But I thought about this, why dividing by $0$ is impossible.
Dividing by $0$ is possible would mean $1/0$ is possible, which would mean $0$ has a multiplicative inverse.
So if we multiply a number by $0$ then by $1/0$ we get the same number.
But that's impossible because all numbers multiplied by $0$ give $0$ therefore we can’t have an inverse for $0$, as that gives us the initial number and thus division by $0$ is impossible
Is this right?
proof-verification soft-question
edited Apr 3 at 12:54
Jack
27.7k1784205
asked Apr 1 at 19:54
Selim Jean ElliehSelim Jean Ellieh
21618
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Ok I am in grade 9 and I am maybe too young for this.
But I thought about this, why dividing by $0$ is impossible.
Dividing by $0$ is possible would mean $1/0$ is possible, which would mean $0$ has a multiplicative inverse.
So if we multiply a number by $0$ then by $1/0$ we get the same number.
But that's impossible because all numbers multiplied by $0$ give $0$ therefore we can’t have an inverse for $0$, as that gives us the initial number and thus division by $0$ is impossible
Is this right?
proof-verification soft-question
edited Apr 3 at 12:54
Jack
27.7k1784205
asked Apr 1 at 19:54
Selim Jean ElliehSelim Jean Ellieh
21618
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 19:57
24
$begingroup$
Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
$endgroup$
– ErotemeObelus
Apr 1 at 23:44
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
$endgroup$
– Maria Mazur
Apr 2 at 1:28
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Ok I am in grade 9 and I am maybe too young for this.
But I thought about this, why dividing by $0$ is impossible.
Dividing by $0$ is possible would mean $1/0$ is possible, which would mean $0$ has a multiplicative inverse.
So if we multiply a number by $0$ then by $1/0$ we get the same number.
But that's impossible because all numbers multiplied by $0$ give $0$ therefore we can’t have an inverse for $0$, as that gives us the initial number and thus division by $0$ is impossible
Is this right?
proof-verification soft-question
edited Apr 3 at 12:54
Jack
27.7k1784205
asked Apr 1 at 19:54
Selim Jean ElliehSelim Jean Ellieh
21618
$endgroup$
Ok I am in grade 9 and I am maybe too young for this.
But I thought about this, why dividing by $0$ is impossible.
Dividing by $0$ is possible would mean $1/0$ is possible, which would mean $0$ has a multiplicative inverse.
So if we multiply a number by $0$ then by $1/0$ we get the same number.
But that's impossible because all numbers multiplied by $0$ give $0$ therefore we can’t have an inverse for $0$, as that gives us the initial number and thus division by $0$ is impossible
Is this right?
proof-verification soft-question
proof-verification soft-question
edited Apr 3 at 12:54
Jack
27.7k1784205
asked Apr 1 at 19:54
Selim Jean ElliehSelim Jean Ellieh
21618
edited Apr 3 at 12:54
Jack
27.7k1784205
asked Apr 1 at 19:54
Selim Jean ElliehSelim Jean Ellieh
21618
edited Apr 3 at 12:54
Jack
27.7k1784205
edited Apr 3 at 12:54
Jack
27.7k1784205
edited Apr 3 at 12:54
Jack
27.7k1784205
27.7k1784205
asked Apr 1 at 19:54
Selim Jean ElliehSelim Jean Ellieh
21618
asked Apr 1 at 19:54
Selim Jean ElliehSelim Jean Ellieh
21618
asked Apr 1 at 19:54
Selim Jean ElliehSelim Jean Ellieh
21618
21618
$begingroup$
Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 19:57
24
$begingroup$
Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
$endgroup$
– ErotemeObelus
Apr 1 at 23:44
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
$endgroup$
– Maria Mazur
Apr 2 at 1:28
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 19:57
24
$begingroup$
Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
$endgroup$
– ErotemeObelus
Apr 1 at 23:44
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
$endgroup$
– Maria Mazur
Apr 2 at 1:28
$begingroup$
Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 19:57
$begingroup$
Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 19:57
24
24
$begingroup$
Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
$endgroup$
– ErotemeObelus
Apr 1 at 23:44
$begingroup$
Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
$endgroup$
– ErotemeObelus
Apr 1 at 23:44
1
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
$endgroup$
– Maria Mazur
Apr 2 at 1:28
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
$endgroup$
– Maria Mazur
Apr 2 at 1:28
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):
- What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)
- What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$) (actually a consequence of $0+a=a$ and $(a+b)cdot c=acdot c+acdot b$, two other Nice Things)
- What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)
answered Apr 1 at 20:00
ArthurArthur
123k7122211
$endgroup$
10
$begingroup$
+1, but usually "what $0$ means" is $a+0=a$, and one gets $0a=0$ via distributivity (which very desirable).
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Apr 2 at 19:02
$begingroup$
@MartinArgerami Thank you. I finally decided to add that to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Apr 7 at 10:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes . . . and no.
You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.
See Lemma 2 of the 1997 article "Wheels," by A. Setzer for tables describing addition, multiplication, and their inverses in what is called $R_bot^infty$, the wheel given by adjoining special symbols and rules to an arbitrary integral domain $R$ in order to allow division by zero, even $frac00=:bot$.
answered Apr 1 at 19:59
ShaunShaun
10.6k113687
$endgroup$
25
$begingroup$
You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Apr 1 at 20:02
3
$begingroup$
That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:03
2
$begingroup$
What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:04
3
$begingroup$
Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:06
10
$begingroup$
@Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Apr 1 at 22:34
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.
Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.
A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,
- $a+b=b+a$,
- $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,
- $e_++a=a$,
- there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,
- $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,
- $e_timestimes a=a$,
- there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.
Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.
Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.
answered Apr 2 at 3:12
TreborTrebor
1,04315
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
While I think the mathematical theory behind fields is definitely a good point to bring up, I'd like to suggest that this answer be simplified considerably (after all, OP is in 9th grade, and this is generally considered a good ways above the level of mathematics taught in most High Schools).
$endgroup$
– Chef Cyanide
Apr 2 at 4:49
6
$begingroup$
In particular, jargon such as "such that", "there exists", and "for all" are probably unfamiliar to a 9th grader. Additionally, all non arithmetic symbols (like "∈") are probably off the table. Finally, 9th graders probably won't be familiar with conventions like "$e_*$" meaning the identity element with respect to $*$.
$endgroup$
– Vaelus
Apr 2 at 5:40
3
$begingroup$
@Vaelus: That would be a relevant consideration if we were talking to a randomly picked 9th-grader. However, here we're dealing with a 9th-grader who is inquisitive and mathematically minded enough to come up with their own proofs just out of curiosity. I don't think a bit of mathematics jargon will scare them away; they'll learn it sooner or later anyway. At university, 13th-graders are expected to absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples; for this OP getting a four-year head start on that will not harm.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 2 at 9:37
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm I don’t think that just throwing around jargon will help, even for an inquisitive 9th grader. At the very least, such jargon should be carefully introduced and motivated. I too was once an inquisitive 9th grader, but even then I might have been intimidated by an excessive amount of unfamiliar jargon which was not defined and simply assumed as known.
$endgroup$
– Sir Jective
Apr 2 at 18:48
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm In particular, one of the most frustrating experiences for me in college was being expected to “absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples”; it felt like it sapped away any of the intuition or motivation that should have been there. Why were we building up things this way, and not some other? It’s like this sort of inquisitiveness was being actively stifled.
$endgroup$
– Sir Jective
Apr 2 at 18:50
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
You are quite right.
There is a simpler way, though (which spares the concept of multiplicative inverse):
By definition, $q$ is the quotient of the division of $d$ by $0$ if the following equation is satisfied:
$$0cdot q=d.$$
But we know that $0cdot q=0$, so the equation has no solution (unless $d=0$).
answered Apr 4 at 20:27
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
133k676232
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
but this whould lead to another question, 0/0 is indefinite and could be any real number.
$endgroup$
– Larry Eppes
Apr 7 at 7:28
$begingroup$
@LarryEppes: or not be a real number.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Apr 7 at 8:08
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3171071%2fanother-proof-that-dividing-by-0-does-not-exist-is-it-right%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):
- What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)
- What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$) (actually a consequence of $0+a=a$ and $(a+b)cdot c=acdot c+acdot b$, two other Nice Things)
- What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)
answered Apr 1 at 20:00
ArthurArthur
123k7122211
$endgroup$
10
$begingroup$
+1, but usually "what $0$ means" is $a+0=a$, and one gets $0a=0$ via distributivity (which very desirable).
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Apr 2 at 19:02
$begingroup$
@MartinArgerami Thank you. I finally decided to add that to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Apr 7 at 10:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):
- What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)
- What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$) (actually a consequence of $0+a=a$ and $(a+b)cdot c=acdot c+acdot b$, two other Nice Things)
- What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)
answered Apr 1 at 20:00
ArthurArthur
123k7122211
$endgroup$
10
$begingroup$
+1, but usually "what $0$ means" is $a+0=a$, and one gets $0a=0$ via distributivity (which very desirable).
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Apr 2 at 19:02
$begingroup$
@MartinArgerami Thank you. I finally decided to add that to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Apr 7 at 10:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):
- What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)
- What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$) (actually a consequence of $0+a=a$ and $(a+b)cdot c=acdot c+acdot b$, two other Nice Things)
- What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)
answered Apr 1 at 20:00
ArthurArthur
123k7122211
$endgroup$
That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):
- What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)
- What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$) (actually a consequence of $0+a=a$ and $(a+b)cdot c=acdot c+acdot b$, two other Nice Things)
- What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)
answered Apr 1 at 20:00
ArthurArthur
123k7122211
edited Apr 7 at 10:56
answered Apr 1 at 20:00
ArthurArthur
123k7122211
answered Apr 1 at 20:00
ArthurArthur
123k7122211
answered Apr 1 at 20:00
ArthurArthur
123k7122211
123k7122211
10
$begingroup$
+1, but usually "what $0$ means" is $a+0=a$, and one gets $0a=0$ via distributivity (which very desirable).
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Apr 2 at 19:02
$begingroup$
@MartinArgerami Thank you. I finally decided to add that to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Apr 7 at 10:57
add a comment |
10
$begingroup$
+1, but usually "what $0$ means" is $a+0=a$, and one gets $0a=0$ via distributivity (which very desirable).
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Apr 2 at 19:02
$begingroup$
@MartinArgerami Thank you. I finally decided to add that to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Apr 7 at 10:57
10
10
$begingroup$
+1, but usually "what $0$ means" is $a+0=a$, and one gets $0a=0$ via distributivity (which very desirable).
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Apr 2 at 19:02
$begingroup$
+1, but usually "what $0$ means" is $a+0=a$, and one gets $0a=0$ via distributivity (which very desirable).
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Apr 2 at 19:02
$begingroup$
@MartinArgerami Thank you. I finally decided to add that to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Apr 7 at 10:57
$begingroup$
@MartinArgerami Thank you. I finally decided to add that to my answer.
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Apr 7 at 10:57
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Yes . . . and no.
You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.
See Lemma 2 of the 1997 article "Wheels," by A. Setzer for tables describing addition, multiplication, and their inverses in what is called $R_bot^infty$, the wheel given by adjoining special symbols and rules to an arbitrary integral domain $R$ in order to allow division by zero, even $frac00=:bot$.
answered Apr 1 at 19:59
ShaunShaun
10.6k113687
$endgroup$
25
$begingroup$
You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Apr 1 at 20:02
3
$begingroup$
That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:03
2
$begingroup$
What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:04
3
$begingroup$
Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:06
10
$begingroup$
@Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Apr 1 at 22:34
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Yes . . . and no.
You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.
See Lemma 2 of the 1997 article "Wheels," by A. Setzer for tables describing addition, multiplication, and their inverses in what is called $R_bot^infty$, the wheel given by adjoining special symbols and rules to an arbitrary integral domain $R$ in order to allow division by zero, even $frac00=:bot$.
answered Apr 1 at 19:59
ShaunShaun
10.6k113687
$endgroup$
25
$begingroup$
You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Apr 1 at 20:02
3
$begingroup$
That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:03
2
$begingroup$
What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:04
3
$begingroup$
Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:06
10
$begingroup$
@Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Apr 1 at 22:34
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Yes . . . and no.
You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.
See Lemma 2 of the 1997 article "Wheels," by A. Setzer for tables describing addition, multiplication, and their inverses in what is called $R_bot^infty$, the wheel given by adjoining special symbols and rules to an arbitrary integral domain $R$ in order to allow division by zero, even $frac00=:bot$.
answered Apr 1 at 19:59
ShaunShaun
10.6k113687
$endgroup$
Yes . . . and no.
You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.
See Lemma 2 of the 1997 article "Wheels," by A. Setzer for tables describing addition, multiplication, and their inverses in what is called $R_bot^infty$, the wheel given by adjoining special symbols and rules to an arbitrary integral domain $R$ in order to allow division by zero, even $frac00=:bot$.
answered Apr 1 at 19:59
ShaunShaun
10.6k113687
edited Apr 2 at 10:41
answered Apr 1 at 19:59
ShaunShaun
10.6k113687
answered Apr 1 at 19:59
ShaunShaun
10.6k113687
answered Apr 1 at 19:59
ShaunShaun
10.6k113687
10.6k113687
25
$begingroup$
You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Apr 1 at 20:02
3
$begingroup$
That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:03
2
$begingroup$
What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:04
3
$begingroup$
Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:06
10
$begingroup$
@Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Apr 1 at 22:34
|
show 6 more comments
25
$begingroup$
You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Apr 1 at 20:02
3
$begingroup$
That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:03
2
$begingroup$
What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:04
3
$begingroup$
Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:06
10
$begingroup$
@Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Apr 1 at 22:34
25
25
$begingroup$
You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Apr 1 at 20:02
$begingroup$
You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
$endgroup$
– Arthur
Apr 1 at 20:02
3
3
$begingroup$
That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:03
$begingroup$
That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:03
2
2
$begingroup$
What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:04
$begingroup$
What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:04
3
3
$begingroup$
Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:06
$begingroup$
Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 20:06
10
10
$begingroup$
@Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Apr 1 at 22:34
$begingroup$
@Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
$endgroup$
– YiFan
Apr 1 at 22:34
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.
Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.
A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,
- $a+b=b+a$,
- $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,
- $e_++a=a$,
- there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,
- $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,
- $e_timestimes a=a$,
- there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.
Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.
Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.
answered Apr 2 at 3:12
TreborTrebor
1,04315
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
While I think the mathematical theory behind fields is definitely a good point to bring up, I'd like to suggest that this answer be simplified considerably (after all, OP is in 9th grade, and this is generally considered a good ways above the level of mathematics taught in most High Schools).
$endgroup$
– Chef Cyanide
Apr 2 at 4:49
6
$begingroup$
In particular, jargon such as "such that", "there exists", and "for all" are probably unfamiliar to a 9th grader. Additionally, all non arithmetic symbols (like "∈") are probably off the table. Finally, 9th graders probably won't be familiar with conventions like "$e_*$" meaning the identity element with respect to $*$.
$endgroup$
– Vaelus
Apr 2 at 5:40
3
$begingroup$
@Vaelus: That would be a relevant consideration if we were talking to a randomly picked 9th-grader. However, here we're dealing with a 9th-grader who is inquisitive and mathematically minded enough to come up with their own proofs just out of curiosity. I don't think a bit of mathematics jargon will scare them away; they'll learn it sooner or later anyway. At university, 13th-graders are expected to absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples; for this OP getting a four-year head start on that will not harm.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 2 at 9:37
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm I don’t think that just throwing around jargon will help, even for an inquisitive 9th grader. At the very least, such jargon should be carefully introduced and motivated. I too was once an inquisitive 9th grader, but even then I might have been intimidated by an excessive amount of unfamiliar jargon which was not defined and simply assumed as known.
$endgroup$
– Sir Jective
Apr 2 at 18:48
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm In particular, one of the most frustrating experiences for me in college was being expected to “absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples”; it felt like it sapped away any of the intuition or motivation that should have been there. Why were we building up things this way, and not some other? It’s like this sort of inquisitiveness was being actively stifled.
$endgroup$
– Sir Jective
Apr 2 at 18:50
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.
Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.
A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,
- $a+b=b+a$,
- $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,
- $e_++a=a$,
- there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,
- $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,
- $e_timestimes a=a$,
- there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.
Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.
Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.
answered Apr 2 at 3:12
TreborTrebor
1,04315
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
While I think the mathematical theory behind fields is definitely a good point to bring up, I'd like to suggest that this answer be simplified considerably (after all, OP is in 9th grade, and this is generally considered a good ways above the level of mathematics taught in most High Schools).
$endgroup$
– Chef Cyanide
Apr 2 at 4:49
6
$begingroup$
In particular, jargon such as "such that", "there exists", and "for all" are probably unfamiliar to a 9th grader. Additionally, all non arithmetic symbols (like "∈") are probably off the table. Finally, 9th graders probably won't be familiar with conventions like "$e_*$" meaning the identity element with respect to $*$.
$endgroup$
– Vaelus
Apr 2 at 5:40
3
$begingroup$
@Vaelus: That would be a relevant consideration if we were talking to a randomly picked 9th-grader. However, here we're dealing with a 9th-grader who is inquisitive and mathematically minded enough to come up with their own proofs just out of curiosity. I don't think a bit of mathematics jargon will scare them away; they'll learn it sooner or later anyway. At university, 13th-graders are expected to absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples; for this OP getting a four-year head start on that will not harm.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 2 at 9:37
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm I don’t think that just throwing around jargon will help, even for an inquisitive 9th grader. At the very least, such jargon should be carefully introduced and motivated. I too was once an inquisitive 9th grader, but even then I might have been intimidated by an excessive amount of unfamiliar jargon which was not defined and simply assumed as known.
$endgroup$
– Sir Jective
Apr 2 at 18:48
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm In particular, one of the most frustrating experiences for me in college was being expected to “absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples”; it felt like it sapped away any of the intuition or motivation that should have been there. Why were we building up things this way, and not some other? It’s like this sort of inquisitiveness was being actively stifled.
$endgroup$
– Sir Jective
Apr 2 at 18:50
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.
Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.
A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,
- $a+b=b+a$,
- $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,
- $e_++a=a$,
- there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,
- $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,
- $e_timestimes a=a$,
- there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.
Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.
Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.
answered Apr 2 at 3:12
TreborTrebor
1,04315
$endgroup$
That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.
Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.
A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,
- $a+b=b+a$,
- $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,
- $e_++a=a$,
- there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,
- $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,
- $e_timestimes a=a$,
- there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.
Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.
Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.
answered Apr 2 at 3:12
TreborTrebor
1,04315
answered Apr 2 at 3:12
TreborTrebor
1,04315
answered Apr 2 at 3:12
TreborTrebor
1,04315
answered Apr 2 at 3:12
TreborTrebor
1,04315
1,04315
8
$begingroup$
While I think the mathematical theory behind fields is definitely a good point to bring up, I'd like to suggest that this answer be simplified considerably (after all, OP is in 9th grade, and this is generally considered a good ways above the level of mathematics taught in most High Schools).
$endgroup$
– Chef Cyanide
Apr 2 at 4:49
6
$begingroup$
In particular, jargon such as "such that", "there exists", and "for all" are probably unfamiliar to a 9th grader. Additionally, all non arithmetic symbols (like "∈") are probably off the table. Finally, 9th graders probably won't be familiar with conventions like "$e_*$" meaning the identity element with respect to $*$.
$endgroup$
– Vaelus
Apr 2 at 5:40
3
$begingroup$
@Vaelus: That would be a relevant consideration if we were talking to a randomly picked 9th-grader. However, here we're dealing with a 9th-grader who is inquisitive and mathematically minded enough to come up with their own proofs just out of curiosity. I don't think a bit of mathematics jargon will scare them away; they'll learn it sooner or later anyway. At university, 13th-graders are expected to absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples; for this OP getting a four-year head start on that will not harm.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 2 at 9:37
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm I don’t think that just throwing around jargon will help, even for an inquisitive 9th grader. At the very least, such jargon should be carefully introduced and motivated. I too was once an inquisitive 9th grader, but even then I might have been intimidated by an excessive amount of unfamiliar jargon which was not defined and simply assumed as known.
$endgroup$
– Sir Jective
Apr 2 at 18:48
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm In particular, one of the most frustrating experiences for me in college was being expected to “absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples”; it felt like it sapped away any of the intuition or motivation that should have been there. Why were we building up things this way, and not some other? It’s like this sort of inquisitiveness was being actively stifled.
$endgroup$
– Sir Jective
Apr 2 at 18:50
|
show 3 more comments
8
$begingroup$
While I think the mathematical theory behind fields is definitely a good point to bring up, I'd like to suggest that this answer be simplified considerably (after all, OP is in 9th grade, and this is generally considered a good ways above the level of mathematics taught in most High Schools).
$endgroup$
– Chef Cyanide
Apr 2 at 4:49
6
$begingroup$
In particular, jargon such as "such that", "there exists", and "for all" are probably unfamiliar to a 9th grader. Additionally, all non arithmetic symbols (like "∈") are probably off the table. Finally, 9th graders probably won't be familiar with conventions like "$e_*$" meaning the identity element with respect to $*$.
$endgroup$
– Vaelus
Apr 2 at 5:40
3
$begingroup$
@Vaelus: That would be a relevant consideration if we were talking to a randomly picked 9th-grader. However, here we're dealing with a 9th-grader who is inquisitive and mathematically minded enough to come up with their own proofs just out of curiosity. I don't think a bit of mathematics jargon will scare them away; they'll learn it sooner or later anyway. At university, 13th-graders are expected to absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples; for this OP getting a four-year head start on that will not harm.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 2 at 9:37
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm I don’t think that just throwing around jargon will help, even for an inquisitive 9th grader. At the very least, such jargon should be carefully introduced and motivated. I too was once an inquisitive 9th grader, but even then I might have been intimidated by an excessive amount of unfamiliar jargon which was not defined and simply assumed as known.
$endgroup$
– Sir Jective
Apr 2 at 18:48
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm In particular, one of the most frustrating experiences for me in college was being expected to “absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples”; it felt like it sapped away any of the intuition or motivation that should have been there. Why were we building up things this way, and not some other? It’s like this sort of inquisitiveness was being actively stifled.
$endgroup$
– Sir Jective
Apr 2 at 18:50
8
8
$begingroup$
While I think the mathematical theory behind fields is definitely a good point to bring up, I'd like to suggest that this answer be simplified considerably (after all, OP is in 9th grade, and this is generally considered a good ways above the level of mathematics taught in most High Schools).
$endgroup$
– Chef Cyanide
Apr 2 at 4:49
$begingroup$
While I think the mathematical theory behind fields is definitely a good point to bring up, I'd like to suggest that this answer be simplified considerably (after all, OP is in 9th grade, and this is generally considered a good ways above the level of mathematics taught in most High Schools).
$endgroup$
– Chef Cyanide
Apr 2 at 4:49
6
6
$begingroup$
In particular, jargon such as "such that", "there exists", and "for all" are probably unfamiliar to a 9th grader. Additionally, all non arithmetic symbols (like "∈") are probably off the table. Finally, 9th graders probably won't be familiar with conventions like "$e_*$" meaning the identity element with respect to $*$.
$endgroup$
– Vaelus
Apr 2 at 5:40
$begingroup$
In particular, jargon such as "such that", "there exists", and "for all" are probably unfamiliar to a 9th grader. Additionally, all non arithmetic symbols (like "∈") are probably off the table. Finally, 9th graders probably won't be familiar with conventions like "$e_*$" meaning the identity element with respect to $*$.
$endgroup$
– Vaelus
Apr 2 at 5:40
3
3
$begingroup$
@Vaelus: That would be a relevant consideration if we were talking to a randomly picked 9th-grader. However, here we're dealing with a 9th-grader who is inquisitive and mathematically minded enough to come up with their own proofs just out of curiosity. I don't think a bit of mathematics jargon will scare them away; they'll learn it sooner or later anyway. At university, 13th-graders are expected to absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples; for this OP getting a four-year head start on that will not harm.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 2 at 9:37
$begingroup$
@Vaelus: That would be a relevant consideration if we were talking to a randomly picked 9th-grader. However, here we're dealing with a 9th-grader who is inquisitive and mathematically minded enough to come up with their own proofs just out of curiosity. I don't think a bit of mathematics jargon will scare them away; they'll learn it sooner or later anyway. At university, 13th-graders are expected to absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples; for this OP getting a four-year head start on that will not harm.
$endgroup$
– Henning Makholm
Apr 2 at 9:37
1
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm I don’t think that just throwing around jargon will help, even for an inquisitive 9th grader. At the very least, such jargon should be carefully introduced and motivated. I too was once an inquisitive 9th grader, but even then I might have been intimidated by an excessive amount of unfamiliar jargon which was not defined and simply assumed as known.
$endgroup$
– Sir Jective
Apr 2 at 18:48
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm I don’t think that just throwing around jargon will help, even for an inquisitive 9th grader. At the very least, such jargon should be carefully introduced and motivated. I too was once an inquisitive 9th grader, but even then I might have been intimidated by an excessive amount of unfamiliar jargon which was not defined and simply assumed as known.
$endgroup$
– Sir Jective
Apr 2 at 18:48
1
1
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm In particular, one of the most frustrating experiences for me in college was being expected to “absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples”; it felt like it sapped away any of the intuition or motivation that should have been there. Why were we building up things this way, and not some other? It’s like this sort of inquisitiveness was being actively stifled.
$endgroup$
– Sir Jective
Apr 2 at 18:50
$begingroup$
@HenningMakholm In particular, one of the most frustrating experiences for me in college was being expected to “absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples”; it felt like it sapped away any of the intuition or motivation that should have been there. Why were we building up things this way, and not some other? It’s like this sort of inquisitiveness was being actively stifled.
$endgroup$
– Sir Jective
Apr 2 at 18:50
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
You are quite right.
There is a simpler way, though (which spares the concept of multiplicative inverse):
By definition, $q$ is the quotient of the division of $d$ by $0$ if the following equation is satisfied:
$$0cdot q=d.$$
But we know that $0cdot q=0$, so the equation has no solution (unless $d=0$).
answered Apr 4 at 20:27
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
133k676232
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
but this whould lead to another question, 0/0 is indefinite and could be any real number.
$endgroup$
– Larry Eppes
Apr 7 at 7:28
$begingroup$
@LarryEppes: or not be a real number.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Apr 7 at 8:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are quite right.
There is a simpler way, though (which spares the concept of multiplicative inverse):
By definition, $q$ is the quotient of the division of $d$ by $0$ if the following equation is satisfied:
$$0cdot q=d.$$
But we know that $0cdot q=0$, so the equation has no solution (unless $d=0$).
answered Apr 4 at 20:27
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
133k676232
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
but this whould lead to another question, 0/0 is indefinite and could be any real number.
$endgroup$
– Larry Eppes
Apr 7 at 7:28
$begingroup$
@LarryEppes: or not be a real number.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Apr 7 at 8:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You are quite right.
There is a simpler way, though (which spares the concept of multiplicative inverse):
By definition, $q$ is the quotient of the division of $d$ by $0$ if the following equation is satisfied:
$$0cdot q=d.$$
But we know that $0cdot q=0$, so the equation has no solution (unless $d=0$).
answered Apr 4 at 20:27
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
133k676232
$endgroup$
You are quite right.
There is a simpler way, though (which spares the concept of multiplicative inverse):
By definition, $q$ is the quotient of the division of $d$ by $0$ if the following equation is satisfied:
$$0cdot q=d.$$
But we know that $0cdot q=0$, so the equation has no solution (unless $d=0$).
answered Apr 4 at 20:27
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
133k676232
answered Apr 4 at 20:27
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
133k676232
answered Apr 4 at 20:27
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
133k676232
answered Apr 4 at 20:27
Yves DaoustYves Daoust
133k676232
133k676232
$begingroup$
but this whould lead to another question, 0/0 is indefinite and could be any real number.
$endgroup$
– Larry Eppes
Apr 7 at 7:28
$begingroup$
@LarryEppes: or not be a real number.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Apr 7 at 8:08
add a comment |
$begingroup$
but this whould lead to another question, 0/0 is indefinite and could be any real number.
$endgroup$
– Larry Eppes
Apr 7 at 7:28
$begingroup$
@LarryEppes: or not be a real number.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Apr 7 at 8:08
$begingroup$
but this whould lead to another question, 0/0 is indefinite and could be any real number.
$endgroup$
– Larry Eppes
Apr 7 at 7:28
$begingroup$
but this whould lead to another question, 0/0 is indefinite and could be any real number.
$endgroup$
– Larry Eppes
Apr 7 at 7:28
$begingroup$
@LarryEppes: or not be a real number.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Apr 7 at 8:08
$begingroup$
@LarryEppes: or not be a real number.
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Apr 7 at 8:08
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3171071%2fanother-proof-that-dividing-by-0-does-not-exist-is-it-right%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 19:57
24
$begingroup$
Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
$endgroup$
– ErotemeObelus
Apr 1 at 23:44
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
$endgroup$
– Maria Mazur
Apr 2 at 1:28