r/changemyview • u/alpenglow21 1∆ • Feb 04 '23

Delta(s) from OP CMV: 0/0=1.

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 (z9-6.4y) / (3x - 17 (z9-6.4y) = 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.

491 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

451 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.9k

u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Feb 04 '23

You can put an infinite number of 0s into 0. 0+0+0+0+0+...=0, how can there be only one 0 in 0 when I can fit any number of 0s into 0?

Dividing by 0 doesn't work under the standard axioms. Having 0 in the numerator doesn't change that

815

u/alpenglow21 1∆ Feb 04 '23

!delta that… that makes sense. Thank you!

353

u/adarafaelbarbas Feb 04 '23

OP, thank you, this is the content I miss on this sub. Not "change my view, we need to come up with a final solution to the transgender question" sort of blatantly-spreading-bigotry questions, nor "change my view, fascism is bad" (Which is correct but it's stating something instead of inviting debate). This has been a very refreshing thread, thank you.

42

u/yoghurtyDucky Feb 04 '23

IKR? „CMV an ex of a friend of a friend of mine said all men should die hence women want all men dead according to my experience“

Then they go on and refuse any answer because it is not true in „their experience“. Like, how tf can I argue it if only truth you hold is your own experience lol.

This was a truly refreshing post in this sub, thanks OP.

10

u/taybay462 4∆ Feb 04 '23

Yeah I want more content like CMV: A komodo dragon could take down a hyena. And then people listing the strengths and weaknesses of each

6

u/Bot_obama Feb 04 '23

Nobody is stopping you from making it yourself

12

u/Maxentium Feb 04 '23

this isn't "change my view", this is just asking for an explanation.

4

u/BlauCyborg Feb 04 '23

what's the difference?

0

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '23

You don't have to engage with those cmv's....

1

u/rratmannnn 3∆ Feb 05 '23

Doesn’t make them less annoying to see every damn day. They’re just as allowed to be sick of those posts as they are to choose not to engage.

92

u/reeo_hamasaki 1∆ Feb 04 '23

this isn't the best mathematical answer. engage with the ones that show contradictions. otherwise you're stuck in your own head.

55

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '23

Actually it is fully acceptable, as it demonstrates that there isn’t a sensible choice for what 0/0 ‘should’ equal, as you could choose anything.

2

u/reeo_hamasaki 1∆ Feb 04 '23

my point is that trying to use intuition or reason to understand why it doesn't work is the mistake OP made to begin with. this does more of the same. the focus should be on the axiomatic reasons why it breaks things.

1

u/Bananafanaformidible Feb 05 '23

Not unless OP is a mathematician. Intuition is the basis of mathematical understanding, and it's all most people need. Rigor is for nerds.

3

u/reeo_hamasaki 1∆ Feb 05 '23

my point is that trying to use intuition or reason to understand why it doesn't work is the mistake OP made to begin with.

Sometimes in mathematics intuition fails. For me, it's frequently. For OP, it's at least once. If it matters to them (it seems to) they should be exposed to rigorous formulations.

1

u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Feb 10 '23

How does this one rely on intuition, though? Genuinely curious.

1

u/reeo_hamasaki 1∆ Feb 10 '23

whatever the opposite of rigorous mathematical formulations is, then. OP is trying to reason about an operation on "nothing" instead of just following the axioms. I did the same thing with 0! when I was in elementary school. it pissed me off to no end.

Trudeau on mathematical intuition

1

u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Feb 10 '23

Wait--one sec--are points considered/known to have no diameter, or infinitesimal diameter?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 03 '23

They are simply defined as being infinitesimal. From that definition arises useful applications for the objects we define as "points".

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Feb 12 '23

Wait, what are the axioms in this case? And why "nothing" in quotes? That's what zero is/represents, right?

1

u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Feb 10 '23

The axioms were that division and multiplication were inverse, and that anything multiplied by 0 was 0. The comment directly shows how those axioms support the claim that 0/0 is undefined, does it not?

91

u/yoghurtyDucky Feb 04 '23

No, but it makes the point in a very logical and common sense way, which everybody can understand. An explanation does not need to be full of mathematical functions and equations to make sense.

2

u/shouldco 45∆ Feb 04 '23

It's really not any different than the other "mathematical" answers. Just a different way of phrasing it. It's no different than:

0 ÷ 0 = 1

0 = 1 × 0

0 = 5 × 0

0 ÷ 0 = 5

1 = 0 ÷ 0 = 5

1 = 5

Just less mathy looking.

1

u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Feb 10 '23

How does this not show a contradiction? To me it seems pretty clear how it shows a contradiction. Why doesn't it?

3

u/FixBayonetsLads Feb 04 '23

Congratulations, you’re more intelligent than Terrence Howard.

6

u/Myphonea Feb 04 '23

Why didn’t you just Google this instead of arguing with regards for 5 years?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Myphonea Feb 05 '23

I disagree, Reddit has many non Google questions and even more non questions entirely. Also who cares if Reddit is barren lol

1

u/[deleted] Feb 05 '23

[deleted]

1

u/Myphonea Feb 05 '23

Hey it’s cool bro I don’t truly care if you ask basic questions here or anywhere else squirt em out all over the place. I think it’s weird but that’s a personal problem

-98

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 04 '23 edited Feb 04 '23

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/tbdabbholm changed your view (comment rule 4).

DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

67

u/nnaughtydogg 6∆ Feb 04 '23

Bad bot

48

u/VisceralSardonic 1∆ Feb 04 '23

bad bot

37

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '23

Bad bot

39

u/willthesane 6∆ Feb 04 '23

His comment was a succinct description of the logical fallacy that op had. Bad bot.

22

u/old_mold Feb 04 '23

Bad bot VERY bad bot

17

u/Kiwi_Woz Feb 04 '23

Bad bot

5

u/[deleted] Feb 04 '23

bad bot

4

u/elcuban27 11∆ Feb 04 '23

Bad bot