Dividing by zero

[my brain hurts]

duplicate

[kamil]

I'm not the one offering up these preposterous ideas. I'm just trying to show you the ridiculous consequences of your "theory".

 

THese 'ridiculous consequences' come from those arithmetic operations whcih both you and I agree that cannot be applied when the denominator is zero. Therefore it doesnt disprove my idea.

 

33*0=0

33/0=0

 

32*0=0

32=0/0

 

Does this disprove 33*0=0? No it dosent.

 

 

Read my first post and tell me where I have made the error.

[TheBigDog]

Isn't a "point" in space the equivilant of "now" in time?

Without dimention = unexpressible in math? (Existing, but not really zero)

 

I dunno, but I would like to know.

 

Bill

[kamil]

Isn't a "point" in space the equivilant of "now" in time?

 

 

Bill

 

Yes, though a better word would be 'instant' instead of 'now'. there are an infinite amount of instances in any duration of time. So in 33 sec there would be an infinite amount of these instances, and they all last zero seconds.

 

Just like a 33cm line has an infinite amount of points, which all have a length of zero cm.

[Tormod]

Yes, though a better word would be 'instant' instead of 'now'. there are an infinite amount of instances in any duration of time. So in 33 sec there would be an infinite amount of these instances, and they all last zero seconds.

 

Just like a 33cm line has an infinite amount of points, which all have a length of zero cm.

 

This is contrary to modern theory. The planck limits put a minimum boundary on length and time. A point cannot be smaller than the planck length, and a unit of time cannot be shorter than the planck time. Thus nothing that exists can have zero expansion, and there cannot be an infinite amount of points between A and B.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

[Pyrotex]

...and there cannot be an infinite amount of points between A and B.

If you are referring to "physical points" (which we almost never do) then you are technically correct.

However, in math we (almost always) refer to Ideal or Platonic "points" for which it is (almost) correct to say that there are an infinite number of them on any given finite line segment.

[kamil]

This is contrary to modern theory. The planck limits put a minimum boundary on length and time. A point cannot be smaller than the planck length, and a unit of time cannot be shorter than the planck time. Thus nothing that exists can have zero expansion, and there cannot be an infinite amount of points between A and B.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

 

Yes of course, you are right Tormod:) But i am questioning the mathematics not the physics. Nature may have quantized space, though mathematics can also be abstract and not just designed to apply to nature. Math is the srudy of logic, logic which can be applied to things other than nature. That logic can also applied to nature/physics. Though a discovery in physics( quantized space) will not disprove the logic(mathematics).

 

BTW, is quantied space-time already fully accepted by the scientific community?

[woog]

But i am questioning the mathematics not the physics. Nature may have quantized space, though mathematics can also be abstract and not just designed to apply to nature. Math is the srudy of logic, logic which can be applied to things other than nature. That logic can also applied to nature/physics. Though a discovery in physics( quantized space) will not disprove the logic(mathematics).

It occurred to me that you are using physical ideas in the deduction of your result, namely length. Should then your above statement detract from your method and conclusion?

 

Regardless, mathematics just forbids division by zero because it leads to nonsensical answers. That is, assuming 33/0=inf leads to contradictions elsewhere, and mathematics tries to be self contained and consistent.

 

For example summing an infinite number of zeros does not give 33.

 

The closest thing we are allowed to do is to take the limit.

 

What I'm saying is the flaw in your argument is the line "...applying the above formula..." because it is simply forbidden. i.e. if you wish to use the operation of division as defined, then one of the rules is division by zero is not allowed.