mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Miscellaneous Math

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2020-06-23, 14:03   #23
BillyB
 
Jun 2020

358 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
I'm not asking for a result. I'm asking for how you represent it. Using normal division I can write x/0. How would you write it?
Well since this is a new way of thinking about division that I believe is fully rational and logical anything other than that doesn’t appear naturally. I’m not trying to ignore it but it just wouldn’t present itself unless we already know about it. Since I’m not clear on what you are asking my notation is 1 cut 0 equals 1 thing at 100% of its original size. Does that help at all?
BillyB is offline  
Old 2020-06-23, 14:07   #24
BillyB
 
Jun 2020

29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
You now say that you haven't fixed it. Before you said you did. Pick one stance or admit you are/were wrong.
1 cut 0 times equals no change to the thing. That is where a cut by 0 is defined. It is still the same thing that it started out as. That is the left side of the equation.
BillyB is offline  
Old 2020-06-23, 14:08   #25
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

5×11×157 Posts
Default

Cutting one physical thing into two pieces (one cut) = 1 / 2
Cutting one physical thing into 4 pieces (3 cuts) = 1 /4
Not cutting 1 thing = leaving it in 1 piece (zero cuts) = 1 / 1
Cutting 1 thing into zero pieces (an imaginary number of cuts) = 1 / 0

You are confusing the last 2.
Uncwilly is online now  
Old 2020-06-23, 14:11   #26
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

5·11·157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB View Post
Well since this is a new way of thinking about division that I believe is fully rational and logical anything other than that doesn’t appear naturally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB View Post
But division is different. In my opinion it’s a useful way of equating a fraction to a decimal. 1/0 is a paradox because it should or could be 1 and/or 0 at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB View Post
We must keep division and this cut theory separate as our current division is well defined and established.
Is it division or not?
Uncwilly is online now  
Old 2020-06-23, 14:11   #27
BillyB
 
Jun 2020

29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
Cutting one physical thing into two pieces (one cut) = 1 / 2
Cutting one physical thing into 4 pieces (3 cuts) = 1 /4
Not cutting 1 thing = leaving it in 1 piece (zero cuts) = 1 / 1
Cutting 1 thing into zero pieces (an imaginary number of cuts) = 1 / 0

You are confusing the last 2.
You are leaving out the number of pieces from the cut. 1 cut 1 equals 2 pieces at 1/2 size. Or 1)1 = 2(.5)

I’m using the parentheses for lack of better notation
BillyB is offline  
Old 2020-06-23, 14:12   #28
BillyB
 
Jun 2020

29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
Is it division or not?
I have been told that I cannot call it division because it already exists. Our current division is included so it is an expansion of it that gives more information. It can be called a cut theory if that works.
BillyB is offline  
Old 2020-06-23, 14:17   #29
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

166D16 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB View Post
Well since this is a new way of thinking about division that I believe is fully rational and logical anything other than that doesn’t appear naturally. I’m not trying to ignore it but it just wouldn’t present itself unless we already know about it. Since I’m not clear on what you are asking my notation is 1 cut 0 equals 1 thing at 100% of its original size. Does that help at all?
Dividing by zero comes up in lots of formulae and equations. You can't just ignore it.

And, no, simply repeating your representation of division by 1 does not address my question. Cutting a thing zero times is NOT division by zero, it is division by 1.
retina is offline  
Old 2020-06-23, 14:24   #30
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

5×11×157 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyB View Post
I presented this to a couple of my mechanical engineering professors and they had great things to say about it.
Why did you present this to to mechanical engineering profs and not a math instructor? Are you in school at USM still?
Uncwilly is online now  
Old 2020-06-23, 14:25   #31
BillyB
 
Jun 2020

29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by retina View Post
Dividing by zero comes up in lots of formulae and equations. You can't just ignore it.

And, no, simply repeating your representation of division by 1 does not address my question. Cutting a thing zero times is NOT division by zero, it is division by 1.
That is politely why this is a new thought on division. But they are separate. You can’t say the equal each other because they are different concepts combined together. But to be clear we are saying the same thing. One cut zero equals one. One cut one equals 2(1/2) which also equals one when multiplied together and so on and so on.
BillyB is offline  
Old 2020-06-23, 14:27   #32
BillyB
 
Jun 2020

29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncwilly View Post
Why did you present this to to mechanical engineering profs and not a math instructor? Are you in school at USM still?
I shared it with math and engineering professors. I graduated already.
BillyB is offline  
Old 2020-06-23, 14:28   #33
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502
 
Uncwilly's Avatar
 
"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

5×11×157 Posts
Default

And what did the math folks say?
Uncwilly is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Prime number thought experiment MooMoo2 Lounge 59 2018-01-02 18:37
Just a thought of Quark numbers. SarK0Y Miscellaneous Math 44 2011-11-07 18:01
A real GIMPS math thought davieddy Math 45 2011-06-06 01:58
I thought I found another one..... schickel Aliquot Sequences 0 2011-02-21 03:52
MPrime: K7 has 64KB of L1 cache... but I thought it had 128K! optim Hardware 2 2004-07-10 19:59

All times are UTC. The time now is 21:41.

Tue Sep 29 21:41:52 UTC 2020 up 19 days, 18:52, 0 users, load averages: 1.81, 1.65, 1.70

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.