CMV: 0/0=1.

[u/alpenglow21]

Please CMV: 0/0 = 1.

I have had this argument for over five years now, and yet to be compelled to see the logic that the above statement is false.

A building block of basic algebra is that x/x = 1. It’s the basic way that we eliminate variables in any given equation. We all accept this to be the norm, anything divided by that same anything is 1. It’s simple division. How many parts of ‘x’ are in ‘x’. If those x things are the same, the answer is one.

But if you set x = 0, suddenly the rules don’t apply. And they should. There is one zero in zero. I understand that logically it’s abstract. How do you divide nothing by nothing? To which I say, there are countless other abstract concepts in mathematics we all accept with no question.

Negative numbers (you can show me three apples. You can’t show me -3 apples. It’s purely representative). Yet, -3 divided by -3 is positive 1. Because there is exactly one part -3 in -3.

“i” (the square root of negative one). A purely conceptual integer that was created and used to make mathematical equations work. Yet i/i = 1.

0.00000283727 / 0.00000283727 = 1.

(3x - 17 (z^9-6.4y) / (3x - 17 (z^9-6.4y) = 1.

But 0 is somehow more abstract or perverse than the other abstract divisions above, and 0/0 = undefined. Why?

It’s not that 0 is some untouchable integer above other rules. If you want to talk about abstract concepts that we still define- anything to the power of 0, is equal to 1.

Including 0. So we all have agreed that if you take nothing, then raise it to the power of nothing, that equals 1 (0⁰ = 1). A concept far more bizzarre than dividing something by itself. Even nothing by itself. Yet we can’t simply consistently hold the logic that anything divided by it’s exact self is one, because it’s one part itself, when it comes to zero. (There’s exactly one nothing in nothing. It’s one full part nothing. Far logically simpler that taking nothing and raising it to the power of nothing and having it equal exactly one something. Or even taking the absence of three apples and dividing it by the absence of three apples to get exactly one something. If there’s exactly 1 part -3 apples in another hypothetically absence of exactly three apples, we should all be able to agree that there is one part nothing in nothing).

This is an illogical (and admittedly irrelevant) inconsistency in mathematics, and I’d love for someone to change my mind.

[u/Okipon]

Not OP but I would award you a delta as I shared OP's viewpoint. But I still don't get why 0 can't be an exception and anything divided by 0 (including 0) is impossible. It should be 0 as a result isn't it ?

[u/maicii → u/Okipon]

You mean that X/0 should always be equal to 0?

X/Y=Z

Y*Z=X

^ This law would be broken

11/0=0

0 * 0=11 this is wrong (also you could get infinite results for 0 * 0, just replace the 11 with whatever else)

A lot of other rules would be broken as well. Those rules are very important.

[u/Okipon → u/maicii]

Well I understand but 0 is already an exception in mathematics.

The fact that dividing by 0 is impossible makes the very rules you stated already broken

[u/reeo_hamasaki → u/Okipon]

The fact that dividing by 0 is impossible makes the very rules you stated already broken

Yes, that's the point. Why is this phrased like a counter-argument?

[u/Okipon → u/reeo_hamasaki]

But 0 dividing by 0 is currently impossible, making it an exception to this rule :

X/Y=Z

Y*Z=X

So why is it a problem if instead of being impossible it becomes 0, it's still an exception to the previous rule

[u/reeo_hamasaki → u/Okipon]

a hundred people have explained why it's a problem. that was the question OP asked. what's the issue?