Keeping it legal dad!_SkyFall wrote:
I don't think that's what you're supposed to do with itRifdi wrote:
Thanks dad.
Imma hang the clothes now
You're welcome son!
forum
Why I cannot divide by 0
posted
Total Posts
203
What do you mean? I think we can hang on the ceiling together. After all, it's a family rope! Otherwise, what's the point on having a family if you can't even hang out together to enjoy lifeRifdi wrote:
Keeping it legal dad!
As a workaround, take the limit of the thing you are trying to divide the thing by 0 and divide it by x as x approaches 0
yea then if the numerator is a rational number
since the denominator is approaching zero it'll be positive or negative infintiy depending on the sign of the numerator
since the denominator is approaching zero it'll be positive or negative infintiy depending on the sign of the numerator
Did u just_SkyFall wrote:
What do you mean? I think we can hang on the ceiling together. After all, it's a family rope! Otherwise, what's the point on having a family if you can't even hang out together to enjoy lifeRifdi wrote:
Keeping it legal dad!
Wow
Im speechless dad
The limit, as the number of people I'm dividing cake for approaches zero, the number of slices approaches...abraker wrote:
As a workaround, take the limit of the thing you are trying to divide the thing by 0 and divide it by x as x approaches 0
LOL
Blitz has a point, if we are taking the cake example, you can't do limits, this is a real life scenario.
Blitz has a point, if we are taking the cake example, you can't do limits, this is a real life scenario.
Yeah thats the fastest way to answer it, for more proof and whatnot youtube has some videos for thatjohnmedina999 wrote:
LOL
Blitz has a point, if we are taking the cake example, you can't do limits, this is a real life scenario.
but the cake is a lie
cake goes to infinityBlitzfrog wrote:
The limit, as the number of people I'm dividing cake for approaches zero, the number of slices approaches...abraker wrote:
As a workaround, take the limit of the thing you are trying to divide the thing by 0 and divide it by x as x approaches 0
kai99 wrote:
but the cake is a lie
I just found to never run out of cakeskai99 wrote:
cake goes to infinityBlitzfrog wrote:
The limit, as the number of people I'm dividing cake for approaches zero, the number of slices approaches...
Wait, wouldn't you eventually end up with a cake that's untouched? Like, at the limit there won't be any people to give the cake to... (I don't think this is a very good analogy for why you can't divide by 0.)
The old fashioned notion of dividing a whole slice for N people is not going to do us good in this, we need to break the problem down to its core. When you are slicing a cake, you are taking and series of angles of a circles in parts and distributing them one by one. The procedure is the following: You take the whole 360 deg angle and divide it by the number of people you want to give it to, then you trace that much from the starting point around it, and give that much you traced to the first person. Then repeat until you got no cake left. So consider this:Blitzfrog wrote:
The limit, as the number of people I'm dividing cake for approaches zero, the number of slices approaches...abraker wrote:
As a workaround, take the limit of the thing you are trying to divide the thing by 0 and divide it by x as x approaches 0
You have 2pi of cake and need to divide it by one person. Ok: (2/pi)/1 = 2/pi, a whole cake. Here you go one person!
What about half a person? (2/pi)/0.5 = 4/pi or 2 wholes. Right? Wrong! You just go around once, and obviously the rest doesn't matter since you traced the whole, but for the sake of math we will trace a full circle again. The whole cake has been traced around anyway and the half person gets the full cake
What about a third of a person? Same you just go around and stop where you went around already, effectively making no difference.
What about Infinity? Same no difference. Whole cake.
Does this work for 2 people, you, a skeptical reader might be now wondering, now concerned about the nonsense I wrote. Well yes, idiot reader, it does work. Here is how: (2/pi)/2 = pi or half of a whole. So you give the traced amount to the first person and continue tracing (2/pi)/2 for the second person. Another half!
And so, quod erat demonstrandum
Edit: What happens if you try dividing by infinity:
my god
why would you have 2pi of a cake tho
why would you have 2pi of a cake tho
Well assuming its a regular cylindrical cake
It should have 2pi*r^2*h of edible volume available.
It should have 2pi*r^2*h of edible volume available.
3D is irrelevant when cutting the cake because of the subsection nature of the cut. If you have a 4D knife and cake on the other hand, then would play a role.Rifdi wrote:
Well assuming its a regular cylindrical cake
It should have 2pi*r^2*h of edible volume available.
Why not?kai99 wrote:
my god
why would you have 2pi of a cake tho
This thread is a fathom away from plunging into the abyss of mathematics, I would like to execute a strategical retreat.
Topic Starter
how did it get this complicated
I thought the answer was () (you divided the 0 in the middle and it splited into () )
I thought the answer was () (you divided the 0 in the middle and it splited into () )
I'm sorry I can't take this anymore, I need to tell you the truth.Rifdi wrote:
Did u just
Wow
Im speechless dad
You, my son, are adopted.
*cries in 1x100*_SkyFall wrote:
I'm sorry I can't take this anymore, I need to tell you the truth.Rifdi wrote:
Did u just
Wow
Im speechless dad
You, my son, are adopted.
ill have one planck length of cake
How so? How would you even know what a 4D shape looks like? Let alone cut it. The motion of cutting implies 3D. How do you cut a 2D cake with a 2D knife without going to the 3rd Dimension?? (Slicing doesn't count)abraker wrote:
3D is irrelevant when cutting the cake because of the subsection nature of the cut. If you have a 4D knife and cake on the other hand, then would play a role.Rifdi wrote:
Well assuming its a regular cylindrical cake
It should have 2pi*r^2*h of edible volume available.
Plus, what does a 4D cake even look like?? A 2D cake is pi*r^2, a 3D cake is pi*r^2*h, but the 2 shapes are different. The equivalent of a circle in 3D is a sphere, not some puny cylinder. Note: we can consider a cylinder as 2-2D objects: circles and a rectangle. So what is the combination for a 4D cake??
Cylinder + rectangular prism??(which is the equivalent of 2*circle*rectangle + rectangle*6 in 2D world). Cylinder + Sphere?
First off, it's 2pi radians of a cake. Things need units depending on what you're measuring. For example, when measuring your dick, you would say x dx long. Now if you don't know what radians are, you obviously haven't played enough MMORPG to know what raids are, which means you should go play more. Now since I'm a nice person, I'll explain what radians are. It's basically a unit that we use to see whether we hit the G spot or notabraker wrote:
Why not?kai99 wrote:
my god
why would you have 2pi of a cake tho
First if you cut a 2D cake with a 2D knife, then your are effectively squashing it and not cutting it, because you know, like you said how would that go to the 3rd Dimension? It would make more sense to cut a 1D cake with a 2D knife. A 4D cake is impossible for a 3D being to comprehend, but it would would be a 4D cylinder. Here is a 4D cylinder being rotated in a crossection of 3D space:Blitzfrog wrote:
How so? How would you even know what a 4D shape looks like? Let alone cut it. The motion of cutting implies 3D. How do you cut a 2D cake with a 2D knife without going to the 3rd Dimension?? (Slicing doesn't count)
Plus, what does a 4D cake even look like?? A 2D cake is pi*r^2, a 3D cake is pi*r^2*h, but the 2 shapes are different. The equivalent of a circle in 3D is a sphere, not some puny cylinder. Note: we can consider a cylinder as 2-2D objects: circles and a rectangle. So what is the combination for a 4D cake??
Cylinder + rectangular prism??(which is the equivalent of 2*circle*rectangle + rectangle*6 in 2D world). Cylinder + Sphere?
Please see this post and consider signing up to OT University's OT unit theory course.Blitzfrog wrote:
First off, it's 2pi radians of a cake. Things need units depending on what you're measuring. For example, when measuring your dick, you would say x dx long. Now if you don't know what radians are, you obviously haven't played enough MMORPG to know what raids are, which means you should go play more. Now since I'm a nice person, I'll explain what radians are. It's basically a unit that we use to see whether we hit the G spot or not
This thread will be locked in 6 posts.
This thread will need to be divided by 0 before that happensColdTooth wrote:
This thread will be locked in 6 posts.
You can't divide by 0 because if you could you would be able to make a lot of contradictions.
Using real life examples is bad because you can do a lot of things in maths that don't work in real life.
Using real life examples is bad because you can do a lot of things in maths that don't work in real life.
That's why you you invent stuff to work with the impossible in real lifesilmarilen wrote:
You can't divide by 0 because if you could you would be able to make a lot of contradictions.
Using real life examples is bad because you can do a lot of things in maths that don't work in real life.
But what can't be done in real life would fall in the category of theories or something that is "mathematically possible". Math is the language of the universe and since the universe is real, I don't see why we can't take examples from the real world. It's much more intuitive that way.silmarilen wrote:
You can't divide by 0 because if you could you would be able to make a lot of contradictions.
Using real life examples is bad because you can do a lot of things in maths that don't work in real life.
BUT, If you were saying that certain things in math should be explained in a mathematical way then I agree with you.
omg it's koren
Calculus uses infinitesimal, which is not realisticRifdi wrote:
But what can't be done in real life would fall in the category of theories or something that is "mathematically possible". Math is the language of the universe and since the universe is real, I don't see why we can't take examples from the real world. It's much more intuitive that way.silmarilen wrote:
You can't divide by 0 because if you could you would be able to make a lot of contradictions.
Using real life examples is bad because you can do a lot of things in maths that don't work in real life.
BUT, If you were saying that certain things in math should be explained in a mathematical way then I agree with you.
It isn't realistic but there are real examples for it, black holes for one. All its mass is packed in a single infinitesimal point. Well at least in terms of size the concept of infinitesimal exists.Blitzfrog wrote:
Calculus uses infinitesimal, which is not realistic
Did you just read an article about blackhole online?Rifdi wrote:
It isn't realistic but there are real examples for it, black holes for one. All its mass is packed in a single infinitesimal point. Well at least in terms of size the concept of infinitesimal exists.Blitzfrog wrote:
Calculus uses infinitesimal, which is not realistic
First off, Blackholes don't have mass. Not directly. They're not anything, how can they have mass? Black holes are not objects, they're what happens when you delete a region from the fabric of spacetime. We just talk about them like mass because they, similar to a massive object, exert gravitatational properties to other objects. For example, replace the sun with a black hole the size of the schwartzchild radius of the sun, and nothing about the gravitational effects of nearby objects are effected. Earth will still orbit fine, so will Venus and any other planet in the solar system.
Now you might say "But where does all the mass of the original star go?", well first off, this question was what made Stephen Hawking famous. It was originally thought that the materials of the star are just gone, deleted. But if you do some quantum physics you will know that information cannot be destroyed, and therefore mass cannot just be deleted. What got Stephen Hawking famous was his Hawking radiation, which is literally Black Holes "radiating mass out of itself".
About the singularity, which is what the media says is "Mass squashed to an infinitesimal point". I think what you may be thinking is that black holes are massive objects, collapsed into an infinitesimal point called the singularity, therefore have infinite density.
We, again, have to be careful. The singularity isn't anything. It is not an object, not an event nor a location in spacetime. If you look at the diagrams you find on the internet, it might show the singularity as a point stretching the fabric of spacetime really far down, but that isn't it. Singularities are a hole in spacetime, and this hole makes the geodesics(you can think of geodesics like the "straight lines" of a curved geometry, basically the path an object would follow given by Newton's first law of motion in a curved space) so distorted that it is basically undefined.
Black holes are formed when a sufficiently massive object is collapsed into a volume smaller than the original object's Schwartzchild radius.(I realised this is rather jargon so you can search up about it) This usually means the "mass" of the black hole is equal to the original star that collapsed in the first place. However the horizon of the black hole first forms inside the star, and then expands. This means to external observers, the mass of the object never crosses the horizon. (Nothing ever crosses a black hole to an external observer as light never allows external oberservers to "see" and object crossing). So in this scenario, the mass of the black hole is redundant.
Another problem here is that the equation used to calculate a black hole (Einstein's Field Equations), also allows an empty universe with an eternal blackhole. If you're gonna talk about blackholes, you must include all of them, including this one. But in this case, what are you suppose to say about the mass of the black hole??? There is no mass, as defined by the equation, anywhere.
Glad to see my school works helping, at least in some way. But god dammit, I got carried away...
Me and my big mouth
EDIT: But then again it proves my point that something infinitesimal exists out there.
EDIT: But then again it proves my point that something infinitesimal exists out there.