/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16162399
not a math boy but doesnt ring theory or some shit allow for division by zero

>>16162399
going with the example you gave:
No matter how many imaginary/additional dimensions you add, their common intersction will always be at 0. Of course you could simply define something else. You could then use your definition to make division by zero possible. The problem is that it wouldn't be currently useful in any way, like imaginary and komplex numbers by extension are.

>>16162399
some number systems include division by zero. It can all be defined. Like Wildberger defined a number system with formal infinitesimals

>>16162399
division by zero allows things like 1=2 and other really wacky shit

it's not possible and we don't need it

>>16162399
Ok I just defined it I made a magical number called "d0" which is the result when you divide a number by zero. If you think that's a copout go plot 1/x on a graphing calculator and tell me what you think my magical number should be.

You can also define the answer to any division by 0 to be ±∞ but it's not like that's very useful either. Anyway, I'm expecting some answers to those math and physics questions you alluded to that are now solved by my magic number thank you.

>>16162399
do we need it? and if so, what for? otherwise it'll just be definitions upon definitions.

>>16162399
You don't just "define" stuff out of mid air. You have to demonstrate that the defined object itself stands "on its own" AND that you can find examples of said object.

>>16163414
What are some examples of objects with i volume or area?

>>16162459
>Like Wildberger
hah

>>16162399
Its not undefined its just that nothing happens. If i divide my cake into 0 pieces i just dont cut it and it remains 1 piece.


There i solved it for ylu, egghead now back to the amazon warehouse

>>16162399
>why is it that we can literally invent and conjure up a definition for square root of a negative number (something that eluded us for a millennia) but cannot define division by zero?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_theory

>>16162399
>cannot define division by zero?
it's not that we can't, it's that we choose not to. It's a convention adopted by consensus of math scholars. Mostly because nobody has proposed any meaningful interpretation of what it would mean to do otherwise.

>>16163702
> If i divide my cake into 0 pieces i just dont cut it and it remains 1 piece.
That was worded pretty awkwardly like you were purposely trying to cause confusion, you should have just said if you divide your cake 0 times.

>>16162399
you don't understand math like you think you do

Division by zero is unironically more natural than a "square root of a negative number".

>>16164054
Smooth as butter.

>>16164096
This is how smooth the brain of a "complex number" ideologist looks like. Not just smooth, even holomorphic.

>>16164106
LMAO, this guy got filtered out by complex numbers. His brain will go poof once he sees hyperbolic numbers.