What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
637 Comments
- mbradbury, on 09/28/2008, -4/+531No because
if 5 / 0 = 5
and 5 / 1 = 5
then 1 = 0
No sandwich - neutronphaser, on 09/28/2008, -6/+388٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶
- XenoSNK, on 09/28/2008, -9/+266You mean.... the sandwich is a lie?
- Blizaine, on 09/28/2008, -2/+212٩(͡๏)۶
wow, I feel like I'm playing ascii spore - devmode, on 09/28/2008, -5/+196(๏Y๏)
- fritzek, on 09/28/2008, -18/+207Front page? There must be a lot of diggers who didn't pass elementary school.
- pardonmedoug, on 09/25/2008, -44/+207You can't divide by zero for the same reason you can't brush your soul: The concepts aren't logically compatible; and the latter never affirmatively existed in the first place, it's just a convenient notation.
- FriedTurkey, on 09/28/2008, -83/+228If you divide a sandwich zero times isn't it a whole sandwich still? Shouldn't dividing by zero be the original number?
5 / 0 = 5
Everything can be understood with sandwiches. - BooLag, on 04/23/2009, -4/+117The concepts are completely compatible, it just happens that 0, the neutral element for addition, has no inverse with respect to multiplication in the field of Rational Numbers.
Still, I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned that idiot teacher who thought he "solved" division by zero with his concept of "nullity".
And pardonmedoug, you must have a filthy soul if you never brush it, I personally brush and floss mine twice a day. - freehunter, on 09/28/2008, -1/+110No, you're cutting it into one piece then, it would be dividing by one. Dividing by zero would mean cutting it in zero pieces.
- Jordan117, on 09/28/2008, -4/+112As you divide something by smaller and smaller numbers, the result grows larger.
1 sandwich / 1 = 1 sandwich
1 sandwich / 0.5 = 2 sandwiches
1 sandwich / 0.01 = 100 sandwiches
1 sandwich / 0.0001 = 10,000 sandwiches
Ergo, 1 sandwich / 0 = an infinity of sandwiches
...
Gentlemen, I think we just solved world hunger. - allothersnsused, on 09/28/2008, -3/+99This just worsened my hangover about 1,000,000/0 times.
Wait. *****! - Chickenzness, on 09/28/2008, -1/+92STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM!
- tekuro1, on 09/28/2008, -3/+948/0 = 17
There, I just divided by zero, arrest me - shredswithpiks, on 09/28/2008, -6/+92if you divide a sandwich one time you have two sandwiches
- Maniaca, on 09/28/2008, -0/+72It's not like they invented Math 2.0 since then. Good article.
- bitORlogic, on 09/28/2008, -3/+69Sorry pardonmedoug, but I had to dig you down. Your post implies that zero isn't a number, just a convenient notation. That's not fair to zero - it's just as much a number as 1 or pi or the square root of negative one. The reason you can't divide by zero isn't about zero; it's about division. Division is defined such that the divisor cannot be zero.
- nemojonze, on 09/28/2008, -1/+61Do chips or a drink come with this *sandwch* you can't divide?
- bitORlogic, on 09/28/2008, -6/+57Not to get _too_ nerdy, but it's possible to define things that way. What you get is a little system where the multiplicative identity (1) is the same as the additive identity (0). This system is consistent, just not very interesting.
(Mostly because it tells us nothing about sandwhiches.) - Akraz, on 09/28/2008, -1/+51yeah but the same can be said if you divide it by 1.
Divide a sandwich 1 time and it is still a whole sandwich.
Your logic is correct but think of it this way.
You divide it 0 times is like not dividing it at all, thus making the action of dividing non-existent. Therefore, you cant get an answer because it was never done. - Zotamorf, on 09/28/2008, -7/+55Division is a shortcut for subtraction the same way multiplication shortcuts addition. 30 / 6 is saying start with 30 and subtract 6. Then subtract 6 again. Continue until you reach 0. How many times did you subtract 6? 5 times. So 30/6 = 5.
Now let's do 7 / 0. Start with 7. Subtract 0. Subtract 0 again.
Call me when you're done. - MuffinFlavored, on 09/28/2008, -0/+46Hurry up, only 2 more installs left.
- jpjandrade, on 09/28/2008, -2/+45SANDVICH MAKES ME STRONG
- Bloodboiler, on 09/28/2008, -1/+41So many diggs for a basic math article.
So many diggers thinking they know better than mathematicians.
If an alien species was deciding if humanity is intelligent enough to be worth contacting, they would flip a coin. - gw8t3st, on 09/28/2008, -1/+40Zero is lack of an amount, not lack of a number.
- HumanityLost, on 09/28/2008, -3/+38Please don't collapse my whole number system.
- neutronphaser, on 09/28/2008, -0/+33٩(•̮̮̃•̃)۶
- DayTripper47, on 09/28/2008, -2/+34I'm still unconvinced and will continue to divide by zero!
- punkcat, on 09/28/2008, -1/+32completely ignores the condiment principle, buried.
- noumuon, on 09/28/2008, -3/+33wow. if you haven't studied number theory, try not to philosophize about 0. 0 is most assuredly a number by the very definition of what a number is. trying to determine if 0 is a number based on "value" or "quantity" denotation is rather absurd.
you could extend any argument above for zero not being a number to negative numbers as well. you can never actually HAVE negative one of anything, yet for some reason people aren't crying foul to negative integers.
not to mention there are numbers that are even more odd than zero, namely imaginary numbers. imaginary numbers are most assuredly numbers. trying to determine if something's a number or not based on "i have one orange, two oranges" etc. is the most flawed attempt qualifying what is and is not a number. - Matt2k, on 09/28/2008, -4/+34Zero is a number, and an even number at that. I think the word 'nobody' is actually a proper identity. IE. Who ate the last cookie? Answer: Nobody ate it, you left it out and the dog took it.
- limpits, on 09/28/2008, -0/+30drink some more beer, the weekend isn't over yet.
- ajbl, on 09/28/2008, -0/+29Ahh, see what you've defined there is the LIMIT of dividing by a number that approaches zero, not what actually happens. The idea is that if you divide 10 by -5, then -2, then -0.5, then -0.00000008, the number approaches negative infinity. Since -infinity is not equal to infinity you don't have a well defined limit, so we can't use the limit to make a definition.
- Jushooter, on 09/28/2008, -0/+28๏̯͡๏﴿
- inactive, on 09/28/2008, -3/+29Then you divided by two.
Divided by x = x parts.
Divide by one = one part.
It's a language problem. We should really say divided in one instead of by one. - inactive, on 09/28/2008, -6/+31The result of a division by zero is our banking system, now shut up and pay your bills!
- Matt2k, on 09/28/2008, -3/+27If zero isn't a number, then you can't very well be adding anything to it, can you?
I'm not going to argue with you, because this is dumb. Go spend 15 seconds on google and come back, okay?
Yes, nobody identifies who ate the cookie. This isn't quantum physics. - burjzyntski, on 09/28/2008, -3/+27Consuming sandwich = dividing by zero?
- nick1971, on 09/28/2008, -1/+24no
- VeniVidiVici182, on 09/28/2008, -0/+23It's all over lawbreaker
- medfreak, on 09/28/2008, -0/+22Yea, I am sure scientists thought the best way to solve this problem, is by creating a 26 mile long giant circular calculator running at almost -273 C that would cost a couple of billion dollars and take around two decades to complete.
- Albumen, on 09/28/2008, -0/+22"Well, let's say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area. Based on this morning's reading, it would be a Twinkie thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds."
- ChileanGoD, on 09/28/2008, -0/+20http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg108/surilamin ...
- noumuon, on 09/28/2008, -0/+18negative numbers do not represent subtraction in an equation. subtraction is an operation. this means when you subtract two numbers, you get a number that belongs in the same set of the numbers which the operation was applied. therefore subtraction is an operation belonging to the set of integers, it is not an operation belonging to the set of natural numbers.
if negative numbers just represented subtraction, how would you subtract a negative number, or what would it mean when you subtracted and received a negative number? this only makes sense when taken in terms of abstract algebra and the definition of operations. frankly, viewing negative numbers representing subtraction is a sophomoric approach to understanding numbers. after all, isn't a negative number just a factor of the negative unit?
i most assuredly came off with the wrong meaning in my post above, numbers being a quantity of a specific thing is the wrong way in which to understand the numbers themselves. numbers are quantities, but that does not mean you can get a proper understanding of these quantities by attempting to understand them as the quantities of physical objects. - Tanktunker, on 09/28/2008, -2/+19Axiom?
- jaswah, on 09/28/2008, -1/+18boobs
- bigmac375, on 09/28/2008, -0/+17I whisper "and beyond!" everytime my math teacher says "...to infinity".
- busket, on 09/28/2008, -2/+19Zero is totally a number.
- EFur, on 09/28/2008, -1/+17dugg for boobs
- sifounak, on 09/28/2008, -6/+22I disagree with the article's argument against the 0/0 definition.
"That's OK as far as it goes, any number z satisfies that equation [ z*0 = 0 ]. But it means that the result of 0/0 could be anything. We could argue that it's 1, or 2, and again we have a contradiction since 1 does not equal 2."
This is incorrect because 1 and 2 are two distinct solutions to the equation (of which there are an infinite solutions). It would be similar to arguing that 1 and 2 are equal simply because they both satisfy the equation
(z-1)*(z-2)=0. -
Show 51 - 100 of 645 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 