Total Posts:25Showing Posts:125
It is possible to Divide by Zero...
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/11/2013 3:16:18 AM Posted: 3 years ago Theoretically, It is possible to Divide by Zero
I wanted everyone's input on my Thesis... Because the images are important, and must be there, and the Forum's don't allow for pictures, check it out herein the Debate. http://www.debate.org... I really want to see what everyone thinks.  Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union  OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org... My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com... #SaveThePresidency #SaveTheSite  DK/TUF 2016  
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/11/2013 3:40:36 AM Posted: 3 years ago Sorry. That link leads to the comments. From there, if you move over, the images still do not show up. Use this one.
http://www.debate.org...  Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union  OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org... My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com... #SaveThePresidency #SaveTheSite  DK/TUF 2016  
Posts: 3
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/11/2013 7:47:51 AM Posted: 3 years ago yes, if zero exists as a limit. Think of zero as being equivalent to a verrrry small number. Is there much of a difference between zero and 0.0000000000000000000000000000001? If you divide the numerator by a number less than 1, and if the numerator is greater than the denominator, then you always get a bigger number. If you divide the numerator by an even smaller number, then you get an even bigger number. Dividing by a number that is closely approaching zero will give you a GIGANTIC number. Therefore, dividing by zero itself gives you infinity.

Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/11/2013 8:05:00 AM Posted: 3 years ago 1. Zero isn't the smallest possible zero. The negative numbers are less than zero, your semantic word play notwithstanding. You invoke the analogy of debt, but, mathematically, 0 debt wouldn't be the smallest debt, it'd be negative debt (which is a positive amount of money).
2. Dividing by zero doesn't equal infinity. Look at the following graph: http://tinyurl.com... If you approach from the right, the answer as X approaches zero is positive infinity. If you approach from the left, it's negative infinity. You never actually obtain an answer and it doesn't actually converge toward any single answer. This is one of the many reasons why mathematicians simply say it is Undefined. 3. That's a square root symbol, not a dividing symbol. 4. You can't divide by infinity. Infinity isn't a number. Here is a good summary of zero problems. 
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/11/2013 8:05:30 AM Posted: 3 years ago At 8/11/2013 8:05:00 AM, drafterman wrote: 
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/11/2013 8:36:39 AM Posted: 3 years ago Also, since you are asserting that 5 / 0 = infinity, do you also assert that 0 * infinity = 5?

Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/11/2013 8:37:10 AM Posted: 3 years ago At 8/11/2013 3:16:18 AM, donald.keller wrote: 0.000000001 > 0 0 = nothing. You can cut a nonextant pie into 4 pieces and get 0 slices of pie. You cannot cut 4 pies into 0 pieces. 0/4=0, 4/0=error "Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle 
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/11/2013 9:27:05 AM Posted: 3 years ago At 8/11/2013 8:36:39 AM, drafterman wrote: ^ This(ish). Division is the inverse of multiplication, so if n/0 = inifinity, then n/0 * 0 = infinity * 0 = n, for any number n. Consequently, your solution to division by zero entails that any real number is equal to any other real number, which kinda screws up number theory. 
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/11/2013 9:30:06 AM Posted: 3 years ago Mmmm.... nonextant pie....

Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/11/2013 11:51:23 AM Posted: 3 years ago At 8/11/2013 8:05:00 AM, drafterman wrote: No, you are using play. 0 is the smallest amount you can have, and the smallest amount you can owe. This is why when some had a debt of 1,000, (1,000) you don't call it a small number.  Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union  OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org... My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com... #SaveThePresidency #SaveTheSite  DK/TUF 2016  
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/11/2013 11:52:42 AM Posted: 3 years ago DanT, you didn't read the thesis.... =.=
 Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union  OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org... My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com... #SaveThePresidency #SaveTheSite  DK/TUF 2016  
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/11/2013 12:06:37 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 8/11/2013 11:51:23 AM, donald.keller wrote:At 8/11/2013 8:05:00 AM, drafterman wrote: No it isn't. and the smallest amount you can owe. Mathematically, no. This is why when some had a debt of 1,000, (1,000) you don't call it a small number. You're equivocating and attempting to use language as smoke and mirrors to cover up your mathematical mistakes. There are two ways you can look at money, in terms of profit or in terms of debt. If you look at it in terms of profit, debt is represented by negative numbers. If you look at it in terms of debt, profit is represented by negative numbers. In neither case is there a "smallest" number. If I have $1,000 of debt, I have LESS money than if I had $0 debt. This is in terms of profit. You are attempting to switch it around and use terms of debt and note that $1,000 is MORE than $0 of debt, but $0 isn't the lowest amount. I can have negative debt (which is just positive money). Having $1,000 of debt is less than $0 of debt. Slapping units of measure and playing around with language isn't going to get you anywhere in the realm of math. There is no smallest number. 
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/11/2013 12:08:19 PM Posted: 3 years ago And. even if you selectively choose some field in which a negative amount is nonsensical, that won't do anything to prove your point about the math.

Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/11/2013 12:59:20 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 8/11/2013 12:08:19 PM, drafterman wrote: I think it's arguable that 0 is the smallest number, if only because "smallest" isn't mathematically defined. If you define smallest as least with respect to the number line, then certainly 10 is smaller than 0, however if you define smallest as least with respect to magnitude, then 0 is the least possible magnitude; 0 is less than 10. In this sense, infinity is just a large negative number. And I think that the size of a number is more intuitively understood as its magnitude than its position on the number line. Of course, his conclusion based on 0 being the smallest possible number can just as well be applied to any other interval because all intervals are infinitely divisible; the distance between 0 and 1 is the same as the distance between 100 and 101 because the distance between two numbers on the number line is x_1  x_2 which has nothing to do with division. 
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/12/2013 12:43:32 AM Posted: 3 years ago The Con has sent in his argument, and I've sent in my R3 argument.
 Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union  OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org... My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com... #SaveThePresidency #SaveTheSite  DK/TUF 2016  
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/12/2013 4:36:23 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 8/11/2013 9:30:06 AM, drafterman wrote: I was on my phone. Nonexistent "Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle 
Posts: 751
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/13/2013 10:00:31 AM Posted: 3 years ago Your original "thesis" is a very poor wording of Zeno's Dichotomy paradox. It has been around for 3,000 years, but the formal mathematical solution came about with Newton, Cauchy and others some 300 years ago. There are an infinite number of midpoints between any two numbers, but the limit of say 1/x as x approaches infinity is zero. This takes care of your infatuation with "a trillion (decimal places) zeros".
As has already been pointed out, the assertion that x/0 = infinity is disproved by simple algebra. For that to be true then x * infinity = 0 would have to be true for all x which clearly isn't the case. This is also why your comparison with swapping the divisor and quotient fails (this is only true for real numbers of which infinity is not). In your rebuttals you devolve into "it is theoretically possible" but it is clear from your arguments that you don't understand even basic mathematical theory, much less the level of analysis that would be required to rigorously prove your point. 
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/13/2013 12:42:51 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 8/11/2013 3:16:18 AM, donald.keller wrote: I think this issue needs to be clarified before it can be debated. The thing is, 1/0 is a perfectly valid mathematical equation. It represents the number of times 0 can be subtracted from 1, and that's a perfectly valid thing to represent mathematically. The problem comes when you try to say what 1/0 is equal to. Or, to put it another way, the problem comes when you try to do something with this math. But it's perfectly valid math, it's meaning is quite clear  it's the repeated subtraction of zero. You can do it all day long. This space for rent. 
Posts: 751
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/13/2013 1:38:42 PM Posted: 3 years ago The thing is, 1/0 is a perfectly valid mathematical equation. It represents the number of times 0 can be subtracted from 1, and that's a perfectly valid thing to represent mathematically. The problem comes when you try to say what 1/0 is equal to. Or, to put it another way, the problem comes when you try to do something with this math. But it's perfectly valid math, it's meaning is quite clear  it's the repeated subtraction of zero. You can do it all day long. 1/0 is not a perfectly valid equation. It isn't even an equation to begin with because there is no assertion of equality. 
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/13/2013 2:07:10 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 8/13/2013 1:38:42 PM, Floid wrote:The thing is, 1/0 is a perfectly valid mathematical equation. It represents the number of times 0 can be subtracted from 1, and that's a perfectly valid thing to represent mathematically. The problem comes when you try to say what 1/0 is equal to. Or, to put it another way, the problem comes when you try to do something with this math. But it's perfectly valid math, it's meaning is quite clear  it's the repeated subtraction of zero. You can do it all day long. Ok, you're right, it's not an equation, it's an expression. This space for rent. 
Posts: 678
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/13/2013 8:49:09 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 8/13/2013 12:42:51 PM, v3nesl wrote:I'm really not sure how you justify this, what counts as 'valid math'? 0 is outside the domain of division so 1/0 is actually a malformed expression. Unless you permit applying functions to elements not of their domain in which case you can justify it, I've just never seen a mathematician do this.At 8/11/2013 3:16:18 AM, donald.keller wrote: The problem comes when you try to say what 1/0 is equal to. Or, to put it another way, the problem comes when you try to do something with this math. But it's perfectly valid math, it's meaning is quite clear  it's the repeated subtraction of zero. You can do it all day long. That is only one semantics for division. There are others. For example it can be characterised as the inverse of multiplication. Analogous to how there are multiple interpretations of the concept of integration. Reimann sums, Lebesgue integrals etc... Regarding the OP, I have seen a demonstration somewhere of the fact that adding a division by zero (no matter what you define it as, infinity or otherwise) leads to contradictions when you do some basic algebra perhaps I'll go look it up when I get a chance. 
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/13/2013 9:08:13 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 8/11/2013 11:52:42 AM, donald.keller wrote: Yes I did. I didn't agree, due to the numerous errors in your logic. Take fractions for example. 2/1=2, 1/1=1, 1/2=0.5, 1/4=0.25, 1/8=0.125, 1/9=0.1111111111111111, 1/10=0.1,... 1/1,000,000=0.000001,.... etc 1/0 has no fractional form. According to you the fractional form would be infinity, which would require that 2 > infinity. Another issue can be seen when putting it in word form. 1/0 would be written as one per nothing. Using the supply and demand chart, this would be plotted as 1 supply, and 0 demand. If there is no demand, than an exchange is impossible. "Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle 
Posts: 678
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/13/2013 10:07:44 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 8/13/2013 9:08:13 PM, DanT wrote:At 8/11/2013 11:52:42 AM, donald.keller wrote: Just quick correction, you meant decimal<\em> form, 1/0 is a fractional form so it clearly has one. 
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/13/2013 10:11:03 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 8/13/2013 10:07:44 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:At 8/13/2013 9:08:13 PM, DanT wrote:At 8/11/2013 11:52:42 AM, donald.keller wrote: yeah. You understood what I meant though. "Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle 
Posts: 678
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message 
8/13/2013 10:38:39 PM Posted: 3 years ago At 8/13/2013 10:11:03 PM, DanT wrote:At 8/13/2013 10:07:44 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:At 8/13/2013 9:08:13 PM, DanT wrote:At 8/11/2013 11:52:42 AM, donald.keller wrote: Yes, but given the poor mathematical understanding of the OP he might not have. 