mersenneforum.org A thought on Division in Mathematics
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

2020-06-23, 14:03   #23
BillyB

Jun 2020

358 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by retina 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?

2020-06-23, 14:07   #24
BillyB

Jun 2020

29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly 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.

 2020-06-23, 14:08 #25 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 5×11×157 Posts 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.
2020-06-23, 14:11   #26
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502

"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

5·11·157 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by BillyB 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 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 We must keep division and this cut theory separate as our current division is well defined and established.
Is it division or not?

2020-06-23, 14:11   #27
BillyB

Jun 2020

29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly 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

2020-06-23, 14:12   #28
BillyB

Jun 2020

29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly 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.

2020-06-23, 14:17   #29
retina
Undefined

"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

166D16 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by BillyB 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.

2020-06-23, 14:24   #30
Uncwilly
6809 > 6502

"""""""""""""""""""
Aug 2003
101×103 Posts

5×11×157 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by BillyB 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?

2020-06-23, 14:25   #31
BillyB

Jun 2020

29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by retina 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.

2020-06-23, 14:27   #32
BillyB

Jun 2020

29 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Uncwilly Why did you present this to to mechanical engineering profs and not a math instructor? Are you in school at USM still?

 2020-06-23, 14:28 #33 Uncwilly 6809 > 6502     """"""""""""""""""" Aug 2003 101×103 Posts 5×11×157 Posts And what did the math folks say?

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post MooMoo2 Lounge 59 2018-01-02 18:37 SarK0Y Miscellaneous Math 44 2011-11-07 18:01 davieddy Math 45 2011-06-06 01:58 schickel Aliquot Sequences 0 2011-02-21 03:52 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