 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/09/2011 07:26 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> On 9/19/2011 11:20 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>> Well, if you define it to be Heth then it's defined... It's not
>> necessarily a good idea though.
>>
>> Fact is, 0 * infinity = 0, so it's not a sensible answer. Unless you
>> change the axioms of arithmetic. (And even if you do, division by zero
>> leads to logical paradoxes left, right and center...)
>>
>
> Somehow I knew you'd post something like this. The fact is, however,
> that defining division by zero to be infinity is actually quite common
> and very useful in some areas of mathematics, and it doesn't lead to
> paradoxes if you modify arithmetic suitably.
Well, sure. I mean, if you "modify arithmetic" such that "zero" actually
means one, then division by zero becomes /perfectly/ sensible...
In practise, I've seen people talk about a result "approaching
infinity", or about infinity being the limit of something. And I've seen
either the real line or the complex plane extended to include a "point
at infinity". But I've never seen anybody attempt to claim that dividing
by zero yields a definite, reliable "answer". (Other than engineers, who
are of course wrong.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> On 20/09/2011 02:06 AM, Darren New wrote:
> > On 9/19/2011 11:20, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> >> Fact is, 0 * infinity = 0, so it's not a sensible answer.
> >
> > I can't imagine how you can say dividing by zero is undefined, but then
> > go and define multiplying zero by infinity. :-)
>
> If you multiply *anything* by zero, the result is always zero. This
> isn't exactly news. We're not "defining" anything, we're just using the
> pre-existing definition of how multiplication by zero works.
You're wrong there. 0 * inf = 0 is indeed a definition as the result of the
left-hand side is undefined in the same manner as dividing by zero is (actually,
the concepts of multiplication and division are mathematically the very same
thing).
see, if you define 1/0 = inf, and treat 0 and inf as ordinary numbers, then 0 *
inf = 0/0 = 1 contrary to your claim. This contradiction is the result of using
inf as a number when, in fact, it isn't.
Regards Roman
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/09/2011 09:47 AM, Roman Reiner wrote:
> This contradiction is the result of using inf as a number when, in fact, it isn't.
Or rather, this contradiction is the result of claiming that division by
zero is defined when in fact it is not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 18/09/2011 09:20, Nekar Xenos a écrit :
> If some-one gives you something for free and you sell it for 1c, how
> many % profit do you make?
>
> I asked the accountant, a whole lot of others and the "maths-genius" at
> work.
>
> The answer they gave was:
>
> 100%. No 200%. No it's impossible to work out.
>
> I asked my 14 year old son.
>
> His answer was infinite%
You forget the taxes (at least VAT, may be other)
0 -> X -> X*(1 - VAT)->X*(1-VAT)*(1-TT) -> X*(1-VAT)*(1-TT)*(1-IT)
So, for something 0, you had to pay the state X.VAT ;
As a company, you get tax on the turnover.
Then the profit get into your income and you have another increase in
your income taxes.
You can probably add more taxes (such as: as a salary, it must also get
some taxes; as a dividend, some other taxes...)
Now for the happy part: you sell for 1c, all taxes are to be round up
(you cannot cheat on the state...) so you earn nothing but 1c of VAT,
minus the fixed rates of the accountant, the bank and all... in fact,
you loose.
You even loose the same way that Bill Gates would loose money to stop
and pick up a bill of ten dollars: at the hourly rate of his fortune,
the ten bucks were a lost of more valuable time. (and he sleeps too!)
better practice that way: get it free, pass it free.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.09.2011 13:53, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> Now for the happy part: you sell for 1c, all taxes are to be round up
> (you cannot cheat on the state...) so you earn nothing but 1c of VAT,
> minus the fixed rates of the accountant, the bank and all... in fact,
> you loose.
I would guess this might depend on what country you live in.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/20/2011 1:18 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> defining division by zero to be infinity is actually quite common
>> and very useful in some areas of mathematics, and it doesn't lead to
>> paradoxes if you modify arithmetic suitably.
>
> Well, sure. I mean, if you "modify arithmetic" such that "zero" actually
> means one, then division by zero becomes /perfectly/ sensible...
I'm not sure what you're arguing for with this straw-man example. Are
you claiming that allowing division by zero is not actually
common/useful in some mathematical contexts?
> I've seen
> either the real line or the complex plane extended to include a "point
> at infinity".
Odd you mention these without looking up how division by is typically
handled in such cases.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/20/2011 3:18 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 19/09/2011 07:26 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> On 9/19/2011 11:20 AM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, if you define it to be Heth then it's defined... It's not
>>> necessarily a good idea though.
>>>
>>> Fact is, 0 * infinity = 0, so it's not a sensible answer. Unless you
>>> change the axioms of arithmetic. (And even if you do, division by zero
>>> leads to logical paradoxes left, right and center...)
>>>
>>
>> Somehow I knew you'd post something like this. The fact is, however,
>> that defining division by zero to be infinity is actually quite common
>> and very useful in some areas of mathematics, and it doesn't lead to
>> paradoxes if you modify arithmetic suitably.
>
> Well, sure. I mean, if you "modify arithmetic" such that "zero" actually
> means one, then division by zero becomes /perfectly/ sensible...
>
1/0 is undefined, however the limit of 1/n as n approaches 0 is infinity. :)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/20/2011 12:45 AM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> What I remembered from school was 1/0=infinity
> It must have been something to do with limets.
>
> The answer to the brainteaser is definitely not < infinity
> And my son's answer was closer than the maths guy's first try at 100% :P
>
The margin on the sale would indeed be 100%, but % profit can't be
defined. You have 1ct of profit, but percentage is a ratio, which
doesn't work if the bottom half is zero.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/09/2011 05:55 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> 1/0 is undefined, however the limit of 1/n as n approaches 0 is
> infinity. :)
When approached from above, it's positive infinity. When approached from
below, it's negative infinity...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/20/2011 9:55, Mike Raiford wrote:
> 1/0 is undefined, however the limit of 1/n as n approaches 0 is infinity. :)
It depends on your math, really. The only reason people invented "limits" is
because they thought dividing by zero was somehow impure, like "irrational"
numbers used to be.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
