Divide by zero, "nullity"

He "defines" 0/0 to be the "number" "nullity". But what number is this? I can't see anywhere where he actually says what the number is. Is it real? Complex? Imaginary? Purple with pink polka-dots? Episcopalian vegan? What?

All I see is him going on and on about how he's make a breath-taking break-through, how he's revolutionising science and mathematics with his world-changing definition. But what has "changed", exactly?

Note: I didn't bother watching the hand-waving videos. If he's actually accomplished something substantive, surely he can put it in writing...?

Just my opinion, of course; I could be wrong....

Eliz.
 
Nullity, eh? Sounds unfun. I'll read it when I get a chance.
 
Okay, so how would this new definition of "nullility" help to solve the equation \(\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}\ = 0\)? How will this "revolutionise" mathematics? Apart from letting computers write "Nullility" instead of "undefined" when division by zero is encountered. It's the same number of letters anyway. :p
 
Well, n / 1 and n / 0 should both = n.

I have 6 cookies and divide them with 1 person, namely ME : I still have 6 cookies

I have 6 cookies and divide them with 0 people: so I still have 6 cookies :idea:
 
Denis said:
I have 6 cookies and divide them with 0 people: so I still have 6 cookies :idea:
If you divided them among nobody, how do you know how many you have? You count as one person. Dividing a quantity with nobody is a meaningless concept.
 
xXAceFireXx said:
i thought division by zero was made possible through calc...
By "calc" do you mean Calculus? I think you may be confused (possibly with limits?). You should have never divided by zero...
 
i have always thought of the same theory and talked to my teachers about it but they just ignore me and tell me to go by the text book >_<

except my theory does not have a number divided by 0 equal negative infinity through positive infinity... just infinity o_O


ex... 10/0
if 10 is divided by 0 it does not stop dividing until it comes to dividing into 10
BUT... it doesn't ever stop dividing (infinite) because adding 0 up to 10 an infinite number of times will never get the original number to become 10... i know this sounds confusing because i am horrible at explaining stuff... but thats MY opinion
 
In the picture where it says that it is the symbol for nullity, why are they using the same symbol as is used in standardised normal distributions where

P(Z<n)=phi(n)

It is the same symbol as for phi.

All that Dr Anderson has done is made a new word for undefined...and even abbreviated it to a symbol we already need for something which is REAL!

Why make something up just because nobody understands it. It's oversimplifying.


[/list][/tex]
 
jwpaine said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml

This is old news, but I'm curious to hear your opinions on this.

The theory of nullity is set to make all kinds of sums possible that, previously, scientists and computers couldn't work around.

:?:
Unfortunately I could not find any application among [...all kinds of sums possible..] many that has been claimed here.

I, personally, tend to give a lot of lee-ways to these types of claims - just remember what happened to "Newton/Liebnietz's concept of limits" or more recently "quantum mechanics" or "string theory". These may sound like a useless mathematical trick in the begining - but these do something - explain something.

However, when I do not see any application (string theory explains gravity) - past or present - or any prediction that can be tested - then I am skeptical.
 
?!?!???

So who gets it? What's its use?

I am on the side of the people who think he doesn't deserve any credit. Exactly what does it prove, or do, or "revolutionize"?

P.S. How many people think everything in the article is true?
 
ALZ said:
How many people think everything in the article is true?
What do you mean by "true"? Do you think that the entire article is some sort of made-up joke...?

Eliz.
 
Top