The last update said: We could think of x/0 as being x is the remainder of the quotient. 1/0 = 0 with a remainder of 1. 2/0 = 0 remainder 2. Basically this is 1 modulus 0, so what would the equivalent equation be that would also give us a remainder of 1? Then we are treating 0 as if it were a variable. so, x/0 = 0 remainder x ... Well let's think for a minute. 3/2 = 1 remainder 2. but wait, that would mean that 1/0 = 0 remainder 1 = 0 and 1/2 what is 1 and a half? 1.5 what is 0 and a half? 0.5 so that would mean that 2/0 = 1 since 2/0 = 0 remainder two, and 2/2 = 1 but then we would be saying 0 = 2? huh? so x/0 = x/2!? What!? Actually, x/0 != x/2 still because even thought x/2 could be 0.5, there is no 1 in front of the 5 to tell it that it will be 1/2, so have we had the wrong idea? Can we now do something like 1/0 * 5? Let's try it: 1/0 * 5 = 1/0 * 5/1 = 5/0 = 0 remainder 5 = 0 and 2.5, which may sound weird but it can make sense that 0 and 2.5 is actually 0.(2.5), I mean how do you visualize that? hmm? well 0.(2.5), to make it 0.(2.5) (in other words to get rid of the 2), you keep halving it. 5/2 = 2.5/2 = 1.25/2 = 0.625. I mean you are representing the decimal 2.5 as a decimal, which is 0.625. To get 5/0, if you want to write the logic programmatically it would be to multiply the number by 2 until it is a whole number which you just put it as 0 and then the number to get 5/0 . So now you know: 1/0 * 5 = 0.625 infinity is it's own thing, and to represent infintiy as 1/0 is wrong since infinity is an idea, and it is NaN. Allow me to do some stuff here uh... done. We now MIGHT be able to define x/0 as a law stating "any number x, real or complex, divided by 0 is the quotient of x and 2 ". This works because x/0 is simply an improper fraction! There you have a definition of 1/0! YES!!! Then again, I could always be wrong, but this is something to think about. If you would like to contact me and/or you find inconsistencies in math, my email is [email protected] . I will then reply my skype if you wish to talk more. Looks like all this needed *was* 3 parts, but was solved accidentally in 2 parts. above: the previous update below: the current update I just posted "Dimensions?" and went straight to editing this definition. Say hello to part 3 of this definition. Since 1/0 is 0 remainder 1, this will not be 1, it will be zero. Since 5/0 is 0 remainder 5, this will not be 0.625, it will be zero. What is going on here is the remainder is another spatial dimension of some sort. The answer to 1/0 is indeed 0 remainder 1, but how do you represent the other dimension on paper? Our dimension now has zero apples and the other has one (more[?]). If this is so, then apparently we have a polar opposite spatial dimension. Finally, I get to see a Borg! :D
Comments