- cross-posted to:
- comics@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- comics@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t think the maths checks out
Proof by comic
Maybe, maybe not. 0/0 can actually approach any value, so if the OP says it’s perfect, well, I can’t disagree.
0/0 is undefined, not zero.
Indeterminate, to be precise.
Undefined is more precise. 0/0 being an “indeterminate form” refers to expressions of the form lim(x->c) f(x)/g(x) where lim(x->c)f(x) = lim(x->c)g(x) = 0.
After some quick research, I tend to agree with you.
If no work is beyond your means you can opt for the equally balanced shit work and shit life.
MATH DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
GOODNIGHT
As if a life could sprout from nothing once the work ends.
Some people pour their lives into work/school to try to make a new, better life grow out. It almost worked there for a bit. Then everything was killed in 2018 and now nothing can grow back in spite of all my efforts.
Okay, so I had a personal project for a long time that addressed the potential for an algebra that allowed for the multipicitive inverse of the additive identity.
In the context of the resulting non-associative algebra, 0/0=1, rather than 0.
For anyone wondering, the foundation goes as such: Ω0=1, Ωx=ΩΩ=Ω, x+Ω=Ω, Ω-Ω=Ω+Ω=0.
A fun consequence of this is the exponential function exp(x)=Σ((x^n)/n!) diverges at exp(Ω). Specifically you can reduce it to Σ(Ω), which when you try to evaluate it, you find that it evaluates to either 0 or Ω. This is particularly fitting, because e^x has a divergent limit at infinity. Specially, it approaches infinity when going towards the positive end and it approaches 0 when approaching the negative.
There’s more cool things you can do with that, but I’ll leave it there for now.
Interesting. I think it isn’t unital either otherwise Ω=0.
0=Ω+Ω=Ω+ΩΩ=Ω(1+Ω)=ΩΩ=Ω
Someone else had the same observation, but it is unital. Keep in mind that it isn’t associative; you can’t pull out the Omega like that.
There’s not much coherent algebraic structure left with these “definitions.” If Ωx=ΩΩ=Ω then there is no multiplicative identity, hence no such thing as a multiplicative inverse.
No; 1 is the multiplicative identity.
1Ω=Ω, and for all x in C 1x=x. Thus, 1 fulfills the definition of an identity.
1 = Ω0 = Ω(Ω + Ω) = ΩΩ + ΩΩ = Ω + Ω = 0
so distributivity is out or else 1 = 0
Correct; multiplying by Ω doesn’t distribute over addition.
How did you correct for parallax amete-gramejons?
That seems interesting. Do you have any material/link/blog on this?
No, I’m pretty shy about my work in-person and I don’t like linking my online and IRL self. Do you have any recommendations for places to put my work?
Sadly, no. However, you could maybe do a personal blog, similar to how Terrence Tao does.
I really encourage you to try, it could help you find new stuff, check for mistakes, clarify ideas, and maybe even hear ideas from others.
I appreciate your encouragement; it’s an extremely rare occurrence when I discuss my ideas with others. I’ll think about what you’ve said and if I follow through I hope to remember to send you a message. I’m favouriting this comment so I can find it again.
my brain hurts
Is could be argued that 0/0=1
since x/x=1
Subbing in x=0 gives the above.Complicating things is x/0=infinity
Subbing in x=0 gives a contradictory answer.Anything divided by zero is undefined.
Yep, infinity is not a defined number.
1/0=?..how many times does 0 fit into 1?
0/0 is undefined because everything would be a valid result. 0/0 is basically finding solutions for 0*x=0 and everything you put into x would satisfy the equation.
This doesn’t clearly identify a problem IMO. Division by a number is defined as multiplication by the multiplicative inverse, and 0 has no multiplicative inverse because 0x = 1 has no solutions.
This dude does have a job, it’s playing whatever game that is everyday
Yea, I was waiting for the math folk to come out of the woodworks and start protesting, and writing massive copypastas on why 0/0 is something that breaks brains, destroys careers and ruins marriages.
Bit stupid we’re still calling video gaming having “no life” when it’s substantially more fulfilling than pretending to have a life you don’t for fake internet points from fake internet friends on fake internet communities. I’ve met plenty of interesting people and developed lasting relationships gaming. And it’s stimulating mentally depending on the genre. Meanwhile, I go out to social settings and see half the people sitting alone, posing with food and drinks and doing nothing but staring at their phones. Some life.
Is that Asmongold?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator