Why you can and can't Divide by Zero

[bobhikes]

I always wanted to know why you can’t divide by zero. Here is what I came to understand.

Why we can and can’t divide by zero.
By Robert Dombroski.

We are dimensional creatures.
Our Math is created by dimensional creatures for dimensional use but there are two kinds of logic mathematically, dimensional and linear.

In a dimensional object zero (0) is a reference point where all dimensions meet. Without a dimension say for example length is 0 and width is 2, we no longer have a dimensional object. Zero times anything is zero so all dimensions collapse.

How could you divide by zero than. Being that zero is a reference point where all dimensions meet if you divide by it you would have separate dimensions not an object at all. Most of everything we do is dimensional so we say that you can’t divide by zero.


But you can divide by Zero in linear logic. I have 2 apples and divide them zero times I still have two apples. This is linear logic and different than dimensional logic. In linear logic you only have quantities. There are no dimensions. Zero is a valid quantity. You can still use a multiple with the quantity. Linear logic is very different with multiples then dimensional logic. If your still interested see the work below:

In linear logic.
Division
8/1 =4 Shown 1111 | 1111 1 divider 4 on each side
Multiplication
2 * 3 = 8 Shown 2 apples org + (2 apples + 2 apples + 2 apples) = 8
3 multiples
Linear shown 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
----------------------------X----------X the difference is 6

2 * -3 = -4 Shown 2 feet 0rg + (-2 feet -2 feet – 2 feet) = 4
Linear shown 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
----------------X----------X notice the difference is 6

Dimensional Logic
Dimensional division A value is made up of multiple dimensions represented as a whole.
Literally 16 is actually 8 * 2 or 4 * 4 etc. If you where to divide it you must keep the dimensions so 16/1 is just 11111111|11111111 or 16 because we represent the dimensions as a whole.

16/2 = 8 or 1111|1111 & 1111|1111 = There are two 2 dimensional objects made up of 8 units each.

16/4 = 4 or 11|11 & 11|11 & 11|11 & 11 |11 = There are four 2 dimension objects made up of 4 units each.

Multiplication evaluated linearly
2 * -3 = -6
Shown Linearly 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
----------------X--------------X notice the difference is 8

Algebraically -3 X = X –X –X –X –X notice the first X-X cancel.

2 * 3 = 6 2 + 2 + 2 = 6
Shown linearly 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-----------------------------X------X notice the difference is 4
Algebraically 3 X = X + X + X



Why don’t we use linear logic. Simply when we work linearly you have 2 points on a line, addition and subtraction work great. We use almost always dimensional multiplication as in I want 5 bags of 200 nickels or 1000 nickels for everything else. Bags and Nickels are separate dimensions. Test you brain try to think of a real need for linear multiplication in life. Really hard try to find a real example of needing to linearly multiply a negative number with a positive number.


There still are some issues. It was fun finding them. If you like challenges try and find some of the other issues.

 

[ellenjanuary]

It's also a warning: Here there be Dragons. The way the old mapmakers indicated the edge of the world. Not that there was Dragons, just that explorers who went beyond that point... got ate.

 

[Requia]

Judging by that article, because its nonsense.

It probably works when explained better, there are a lot of screwy math things that do, but:

It's no compatible with the real world, sooner or later people will want to have things like volume.

Its using completely different kinds of operations, you can't just say 'this is multiplication now' and use that, because it'll lead to conflicts between the old system and the new system.

Its completely pointless, as it does not appear to express any kind of operation that cannot be expressed normally. Its just F(U*V)=U*(V+1) and so forth. This also just shifts the divide by zero problem to divide by -1.

From what I can tell, U*V does not equal V*U. This is a *huge* problem.

Also, you *can* divide by zero, there's a whole branch of mathematics devoted to it, its called calculus.

 

[A-ManESL]

Also, you *can* divide by zero, there's a whole branch of mathematics devoted to it, its called calculus.

If you are referring to limits, that it not division by zero.

Division by zero is not defined in the number system we normally use, just like division by giraffe is not defined. The reason that we don't define division by zero is that since we regard division as the inverse of multiplication, division by zero will lead to certain undesirable issues in algebra.

Division by zero is meaningful in certain branches of mathematics such as wheel theory, but here the word "zero" denotes something else, although its properties are similar.

Regards

 

[Revoltingest]

Dividing by zero is easy if you go about it in a tricky way. It's called calculus.

 

[bobhikes]

Judging by that article, because its nonsense.

It probably works when explained better, there are a lot of screwy math things that do, but:

It's no compatible with the real world, sooner or later people will want to have things like volume.

Its using completely different kinds of operations, you can't just say 'this is multiplication now' and use that, because it'll lead to conflicts between the old system and the new system.

Its completely pointless, as it does not appear to express any kind of operation that cannot be expressed normally. Its just F(U*V)=U*(V+1) and so forth. This also just shifts the divide by zero problem to divide by -1.

From what I can tell, U*V does not equal V*U. This is a *huge* problem.

Also, you *can* divide by zero, there's a whole branch of mathematics devoted to it, its called calculus.

First there is no problem with -1 * any number equaling zero in the linear world.
4-4=0, 7 - 7=0

The only issue working linear numbers dimesionally is with dimension multiplication. To get area or volume you need a rule. For example in a square 4 by 4. In linear algebra it would be 4 * 3 because you are counting quantities. In counting one dimension you already counted 1 unit of the other dimension. The rule for area is X *(x-1) square. X *(x-1)*(X-1) cube etc.

In working the algebra I also squarerooting negative numbers. Our current system is not accurate. We are working with dimensions but the result does not indicate this.

On an XY graph, we have 4 dimensions but only 2 results. Negative and positive are coordinates on the graph and the results would be in seperate dimensions on the graph. We have -X and X we should have XY, -XY, X-Y, -X-Y. or give each dimesion it own indicator. As in XY = nothing, -XY = +, X-Y = @, -X-Y = -,

 

[ellenjanuary]

Calculus shows that zero is the mirror of infinity:

Lim(as x approaches zero) 1/x = infinity.

Calculus rawks. This problem of division is that variables become infinitely variable, 7=6, cats mate with dogs... it's chaos!

 

[bhaktajan]

True/Real Absolute Zero is a void that is actually the Spiritual Radiance of God's Bodily Luster ---that so-called void of Absolute Zero is covered/masked by Time and the anifestation of Matter & Energy.

But that discription is highly esoteric hindu metaphysics. My intent in posting here is to ask readers here if they agree that True/Real Absolute Zero = ABSOLUTE-ness par excellance.

Yea or Nay what say you to this:

True/Real Absolute Void or True/Real Absolute Zero: 1] Exists (thus it is untinged by Matter/Energy/Time & it is omnipresent); 2] It is abolutely eternally un-changing and thus a pure state, 3] It cannot ever be seperated from the existence of Matter & Energy.

The maxim to keep in mind whilst responding is: The laws of Duality cannot be seperated from each other ---and that my postulation is based on the overview that DUALITY is ultimately manifested is the over-arching existence of:
"Matter & Energy + Void" = Our manifest Cosmos.

You might find this interestingly fun to read:

At this link to a Hindu Forum, I argue with Hindu "Sunya(zero)-vadis" where I attempt to get them to admit that "The Void (absolute zero) is ABSOLUTE".

It will be observed here that I applied & used the term "Brahman" to indicate that which is beyond Matter & Energy and that Absolute Zero and Brahman are one and the same thing, simply called out by another name.

I intent was to first get them to admit to ABSOLUTISM that is beyond manifest Matter & Energy ---thus the absolutism of ZERO is beyond the influence of the phantasigoria of forms creatyed by Matter & Energy; and that this State is one and the same as Brahman.

I am a Hindu orthodox Theist . . . so we know that there is more then Brahman (Void) + Para-matma (nucleus of life-force in all specks of atomic elements) . . . beyond these is "Bhagavan" (the eprsonage of God).

The Hindu Trinity Of Godheads expansion of himself ---ergo, the Creation entoto:
Brahman (Void) +
Para-matma (nucleus of life-force in all specks of atomic elements)
Bhagavan (the eprsonage of God).

All this data is contained in orthodox Hindu Scripture . . . even such bonefide texts have their nay-sayers . . . who just happen to be busily propagating the NON-existence of Bhagavan on our mordern Internet venues.

VOID Void void - Hindu Dharma Forums




<Music Swells-in>
All together now:
"Always look on the bright side of Life, ta da, tada da da da da"
"Always look on the bright side of Life, ta da, tada da da da da"

<repeat Music . . . and fade-out>
<scroll credits>
<go to adverts>
<order pizza>

 

[Revoltingest]

This problem of division is that variables become infinitely variable, 7=6, cats mate with dogs... it's chaos!

I haven't run across those problems yet.

 

[bhaktajan]

yah sarvajnah sarva-vidyasyaisa mahima bhuvi
divye brahma-pure hyesa vyomnyatma pratisthitah

"The Supreme Self, who is all-wise, omniscient, and whose glory is pervertedly reflected in the mundane world, resides eternally in the divine city of Brahman, within the great vacuum." ---Mundaka-upanisad (III.3.7),

Vyoma literally means "vacuum," according to the Visvakosa Sanskrit dictionary. Grammatically, vyoma is in the locative case, and thus it literally 'locates' the kingdom of God in a place perfectly free of all matter. Divya-brahma-puri, in the above sloka, is the dhama itself, the transcendental abode of God, and it includes all His divine and glorious qualities, associates, paraphernalia, and pastimes.


---from the introduction of the book ASTA KALIYA NITYA LILA by Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami

 

[PolyHedral]

True/Real Absolute Void or True/Real Absolute Zero: 1] Exists (thus it is untinged by Matter/Energy/Time & it is omnipresent); 2] It is abolutely eternally un-changing and thus a pure state, 3] It cannot ever be seperated from the existence of Matter & Energy.

Absolute zero, the temperature, does not and cannot exist in this universe. If you're not talking about that, please clarify what you are talking about.

 

[doppelganger]

But you can divide by Zero in linear logic. I have 2 apples and divide them zero times I still have two apples.

Dividing by zero is not the same thing as dividing a quantity zero times. If I have 16 apples and divide them by 2, the quotient is 8. If have 16 apples and divide them by 4, two times, the result is 1.

 

[ellenjanuary]

The naught of nothing. When you label the void... there is - a sign - there is no longer nothing. But what of something? for instance, how many ones are there in a three?

Three! Sayeth the college algebra student... but no. "Three" is the unit; of unity, one. 3 is the collective, 1 + 1 + 1. Numbers do not exist; everything that is a thing, is one. Things that are not , are zero. Three pieces of pie? No, three (single) pieces of (pie). Think, four kids; think, sibling rivalry, think; that's Boston Creme, there's one piece, mine.

Numeral is collective of unities. 1 + 1 + 1 ...

Number is non-existence striving to be. Seven - heavens? In all of almighty? In a dusty corner of eternity; an infinity, infinitely forgotten, may there not be - somewhere, somewhen - an eighth?

This is reality, where; if there is one thing, there is something. And where there is some (thing), there is a multitude. But for all the cockroaches of all the dark corners of my dingy and misbegotten mind scurrying hither and yon as a probability of a finite universe at this causal and temporal reference - there shall never be - infinity.

Unless.

There is zero. Where there is nothing, there is infinite nothingness. In the reality of unreal number, there is but one and zero. Division by zero is infinity, yet infinity is not real. Ya ever see this one?

3 = 2 ?

This happens from:

3/0 = 2/0

Cumulative axiom? Multiply both sides by zero to get zero = zero and a wrong answer... but it is not wrong, it is infinity, not being real. Substitute, rather than multiply - 1/0 = infinity - then do the algebra. Does three infinities equal two infinities? Absolutely. See, the "three" part of unity signifies collective quantity; but "infinity" is a positive measurement of all quantity - the quantifier "three" is superseded by the generic "all-quantifier" infinity. Like an invisible pink unicorn...

Wanna see division by zero?

The Banach&#8211;Tarski paradox is a theorem in set theoretic geometry which states that a solid ball in 3-dimensional space can be split into a finite number of non-overlapping pieces, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield two identical copies of the original ball.

~from Banach

I'm thinking, division by zero; is how a bunch of monkeys make an infinite future from a finite universe...