The limits of computing.

Both humans and computers can divide by zero. They both get the same answer - it has no meaning.
 
If you try to get a computer to divide by zero, you usually get this message on the screen:

"Congratulations, you are the 1100111th customer to attempt division by zero!

This computer will now self destruct as a token of our sincerity."
 
I agree sideshowbob. A computer equates infinity: it hangs. This is why computers are programmed with an error message displaying the computer cannot compute such a calculation. :) However I would argue:

(((x+1)/(0+1))-1)=x

exactly the same as:

+0
*0
-0

Zero does not exist. There is nothing there to calculate with...
 
Michael 345 said:
In a BBC english TV program called QI (recommend viewing)

the panel was asked

' Is zero a odd or even number? '

The answer is given as ' even '

Because it lies between two ones

-1 and 1

Go figure

:)
Click to expand...
That's the answer I would have given. It's also even because it leaves no remainder when divided by 2.
 
Counter said:
Can a human do what a computer cannot? For example dividing by zero. :)
Click to expand...

Everyone here knows exactly what proportion means. If two triangles of different sizes are similar, and each side of one of the triangles is twice as long as the other, then you can relate them via direct proportion, right?

Proportional math requires division. There's no other way to express a proportional relationship. Now consider the propostion of representing a proportional relationship between a triangle you can see and an ideal point.

You can't do that, can you? Why not? It's nonsensical, that's why. A point is not a triangle.

That's also what I mean when I say it's more than just "silly" to suppose that time itself is proportional to the speed of light. This leads to paradoxes like time stops for a photon traveling at the speed of light. It most certainly does not. If it is circularly polarized, the EM vectors keep rotating, don't they? You bet the do. They couldn't do that if time itself was stopped for a photon, could they? Of course not.

The reason our reasoning about time makes no sense in relativity is because Minkowsi decided that time was proportional to the speed of light. Well, it isn't. An instant of time is neither proportional to a velocity, the velocity of light, nor can an instant of time be proportional to a time interval; ANY time interval. This is utter nonsense because, like the proportional triangle example above, it is dividing by zero. And this calculation has in fact caused the math associated with relativity and physics all kinds of problems, as well as many conceptually insurmountable paradoxes, one of which I have already related.

If this error is removed, then quantum entanglement becomes possible within the conceptual framework of relativity. The Law of Conservation of Mass / Energy, and inertia's relationship to time is also restored. As far as I can see, there is no downside.

But if you don't belive this, by all means, keep dividing by zero and tell yourselves it makes perfect proportional sense.

So, the answer to the OP isn't "not a number". The full answer is: proportional math does not support division by zero, and whenever you encounter it, it most likely means you are attempting to compare things mathematically that do NOT compare in a proportional construct or context, whether or not what you are trying to calculate something that is physically meaningful or not.
 
Last edited:
Counter said:
Can a human do what a computer cannot? For example dividing by zero. :)
Click to expand...

sideshowbob said:
Computers can divide by zero. They can return either infinity or just "not a number".
Click to expand...

sideshowbob said:
That's the answer I would have given. It's also even because it leaves no remainder when divided by 2.
Click to expand...

My 3 neurones must have disobeyed me and all went to sleep at the same time

You can not divide 0 by 2

There are no 2s within 0

Danger Will Robinson

The same as there are no 0s within 2

Hello - it's a 2

(it would be the same with any number in place of 2)

Double danger Will

Only number divisible by 0 is 0

And it goes once

Here endith my complete understanding of maths

Anyone think there is a book in it?

Uncharted space Will Robinson

:)
 
Division by zero only makes you a hero

To gullible fools with proportional tools

Who think math with infinity makes you close to divinity

And 2=1, only in their vicinity
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
Division by zero only makes you a hero

To gullible fools with proportional tools

Who think math with infinity makes you close to divinity

And 2=1, only in their vicinity
Click to expand...

I am a hero who divided zero by zero

My proportional tools made others the fools

And the answer of one is second to none

And my divinity goes on to infinity with no-one in my vicinity

PS

My bum is now numb
Since 2=1 (about the size of a plumb)
Came out of my bum
With a thunderous hum

Apologies to all :)

:)
 
sideshowbob said:
Sure I can. I have zero money and I give you half.


On the contrary, there is a zero within every number: 1 + 0, 2 + 0, 3 + 0.... It's just quicker to write it without the zero. ;)
Click to expand...

Put a 2 in front of 6 of the zero money's you have and I'll take the

1 million no problem

Looks like to me your cheating

Your adding the 0 first (+)

Naughty naughty

:)
 
0 + 0 = 0 - 0 = 0
=>
+0 = -0 = 0

Which implies that zero is the only integer whose additive inverse is itself.
(i.e. +1 ≠ -1, . . . )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top