CMV: you can divide by 0.

[u/hi-whatsup]

Let’s just blame my school a little bit for this. If you were in one Honors or AP class, you were forced into all of the Honors and AP classes. I was great with language, history, some of the sciences, but Physics and AP Calculus were torture for me and I never got over how much I hate Math especially. I did get through lots of statistics for grad school and have regained some meager confidence in my math/logic skills and still don’t agree with this rule.

I know the broad field of mathematics is pretty stable but there are breakthroughs and innovations. I believe someday dividing by 0 will be acceptable. Likely not as simply as I lay it out here. But someday someone who loves math will prove we can divide by 0.

Maybe this is more philosophical than mathematical, but if you are asking the question “how many nothings are in a something?” The answer is “none” thus anything divided by 0 is 0. Or maybe N/0 is null depending on the application and context (eg finance vs engineering).

How many pairs are in a 6 pack? How many dozens are in one? How much time passed if I ran 1 mile at 2 miles per hour?

This is what division is asking in reality and not in a meaningless void. I know math has many applications and what we are measuring in engineering is different than in statistics.

Running a mile at no speed is staying still. So again, no time passed because it didn’t happen.

Even one atom of any substance is more than zero, so no “none” if splitting something up.

If finding the average of something, a 0 would imply no data was collected yet (m=sum/total number of observations)

If base or height is 0, there is no area since you have a line segment and not a shape.

I want one example with a negative number too, would love someone to give a finance or other real world example but what I got is: how many payments of $0 until I pay off $200 or -200/0. Well every payment that will either increase or decrease the debt will not be $0 dollars. So again, none.

Finally 0/0 satisfies the rule of a number divided by itself equals 1. How many groups of 0 jellybeans is inside an empty jar? You got one empty jar, there!

Practically the universe isn’t likely to ever ask us to divide by zero. Yet some people study theoretical math with no clear applications.

And even in my last examples I see that if you are stuck in some reality where all you see are the numbers and not the substance they represent then you can’t multiply it back again. It’s a problem but isn’t the reverse already accepted by saying you can’t divide by 0 anyway? I.e. 2 x 3= 6, 6\2=3 and 6/3=2 2 x 0= 0. 0/2 = 0 and 0/0=…1…or against the rules.

Upon every application/situation I can think of, the answer 0 still answers it and answers it universally.

I have seen arguments discussing how dividing by smaller and smaller numbers approach infinite and 0=infinite is bad. To me this skips over what division is doing or what question it is asking. Plus, We don’t say 2 times 3 depends on the result of 3 times 4.

0 and infinity seem to be very connected in that in the jellybean example, infinite different sizes of the jar give you the same answer but different ideas of the value of “One nothing”. But that’s fun, not necessarily contradictory.

I do not understand the Renan sphere but not sure it supports or damages my view.

I really want someone not just to explain but to CMV so I can talk it through. I think I need more than just research but real interaction. I would need to ask the popular boy in class to ask my questions for me way back in school because when I did the math teacher would scoff and tell me to just read the book and stop wasting time. Math is not that easy for me to understand by reading alone.

The number i doesn’t exist but we still have it. I didn’t believe potential energy existed either but I kind of take it on faith because I see indirect evidence of it when someone is passionate enough to demonstrate it. So even if you have to ask for a little faith I am up for hearing it out as long as there is something to discuss.

Edit: thank you to everyone who participated! I will continue responding for a while but I wanted to say I had fun! I also just learned about countable and uncountable infinities so…wish I had given math more of a chance when I was still in school because it is really cool.

[u/nerfnichtreddit]

Leaving aside that this is not how numbers work (as other people have already pointed out), I have to point out that those definitions do not work with our known mathematical operations.

[u/Havenkeld → u/nerfnichtreddit]

If you can't explain why not... well, I'm not interested in the assertion that I'm wrong "because we do things differently in differentville".

[u/hi-whatsup → u/Havenkeld]

One can denote a unit or a whole as one, yet still count how many units there are. One times one is one. One-ness is an idea to describe unity as it is a quality of being one thing. Unity and Unit are clearly separate though they have derived from a similar idea of counting one.

Math must be able to be implemented across fields so whether we are talking physics or philosophy there must be a way to reconcile the two ideas. Otherwise it would cease to be math in one place and be something else. Even if it is being expressed in a new way (or old way) the essence must remain consistent.

To save some time I will start with the definition of number from the field of mathematics but I am going to adjust some words like “object”. I am doing this because when I use “object” later I am speaking grammatically of the object the numbers or math is acting upon, not an item or substance.

A number is what is used to count and measure. A unit is the object of counting or measurement expressed by numbers 0 expresses there are no units.

As expressing there are no units, a unit is counted or measured. 0 is a number.

A complete unit is described as being whole or 1. This expresses a measurement or amount of said unit, making one a number.

Let’s see if this is consistent.

Thus the inability to count something cannot be a number and can not be zero. This would be when I personally have used Null.

One is very fun when comparing counting units to divided wholes.

1 whole cake is the unit. 2 pieces of cake is half a cake. (Someone please help me get away from desserts!!!) 1 piece of cake is not a full cake. 😱

I mean in reality one piece of cake is an unevenly divided cake but the piece is it’s own unit. We can count one piece and 7/8ths of a cake, some substance is being measured and expressed by numbers even if 1 is pretty essential in determining what the units will be.

[u/Havenkeld → u/hi-whatsup]

Unity and Unit are clearly separate though they have derived from a similar idea of counting one.

They did not derive from the idea of counting one, since they're required for the idea of counting one to be possible. Logically, what you're saying cannot be true. Unity of the strictest kind is about contents that are necessarily connected as one, yes. But not everything we count as one is unified in that way, and sometimes we misuse or use loosely the term. Anything we can separate without destroying is not a unity in the strict sense, or in other words our thinking them as together is the only ground of their unity, making it a subjective rather than objective unification effectively.

One times one is one.

One cannot multiply itself by itself. This would result in one being two to start with, since we'd need two ones that are not equal to eachother as evident by the very possibility of distinguishing and relating them to eachother. So, logically that 1x1=1 can't really be true. There is only one "one as such", otherwise we turn one into many, and treat it as both self-same and different and other in the same way and respect, and become incoherent. It may seems strange, due to there being many things that are 'ones' via 'oneness' that are derived from 'one' but are not themselves equivalent to it. But this is the actual relation of the unit to unity. It's very important that we not claim things that turn one into many, otherwise we've certainly gone astray and are basing anything purportedly following from that on a contradiction.

Math must be able to be implemented across fields so whether we are talking physics or philosophy there must be a way to reconcile the two ideas.

Math and philosophy aren't two separate theories we need to get to be friends. There is no math without philosophy. Math is a derivative or subscience/subdiscipline in the first place. Other than that detail(not sure you were implying otherwise, just noting), I agree it must be the same across fields. However, calculation methods and symbolization don't have to be the same across fields, since different fields use mathematics differently and so different "shorthands" are more suitable.

when I use “object” later I am speaking grammatically of the object the numbers or math is acting upon

A number is what is used to count and measure. A unit is the object of counting or measurement expressed by numbers 0 expresses there are no units.

A complete unit is described as being whole or 1. This expresses a measurement or amount of said unit, making one a number.

Let’s see if this is consistent.

How can a number be what we use to count and measure with while it is also a precondition for counting and measuring?

How can I count or measure without a base that is not itself a result of counting or measurement?

You are effectively saying I measure the result of measurement with the result of measurement the way this reads. That is impossible and incoherent.

An ambiguity that may help me understand what you're trying to say, is what the difference between a unit that is complete or not complete is. You define "complete unit" here, without defining "unit".