This is an update to the last paste:
For 1/0 to be defined it cannot have any dependencies. For anything to be defined in math it mustn't depend on anything, which is why I need to find a third and final, or perhaps just a third part, of finding a full definition of 1/0.
My update now says that 1/0 still isn't infinity, but it can still be seen as an array of zeroes, or infinite zeroes. To clarify what I said in the last paste, I meant that the x/0, x is not defining an amount of infinities, but that there can be infinite 0's fitting into x, but that still is not infinity, its just an indefinite amount of zeroes. In the end it all ends up being still a zero, no matter how many zeroes you put in front of it(or the back depending on whether it is the exponent or mantissa).
I was asked a question: what if you have 0/0? Then what? Well that is why this is only part 2 because this gets solved, but only based on context. So this is part 2 of 1/0's definition:
The laws we have established state that anything divided by itself is 1, correct? Well, let's think logically about 0/0. Is it 1, or is it 0? Well that's the problem!
Depending on the context it could be either one! how many zeroes can fit into 0? 1.
How many zeroes are in 0? well if you thought about digits, then it would be 1. If you were thinking quantity, this would be 0. These are both logical, and one of which breaks that law of "anything divided by itself is 1". This would require an amendment, or an exception. A E I O U and sometimes little Y. 0/0 is that little Y. We want 0/0 (or x/0) to be that A, E, I, O, or U.
As I think about it more and more, zero can be seen as a quantity of x, and x / x = 1, x - x = 0, x + x = y, but yet we can define something like when {x R | x != 0} (R is meaning real number here, I can't put that odd sign in unfortunately :( )
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.
Comments