Is it possible to find the new number system. Which solve the divide by zero?

I would suggest that you approach a math teacher and ask them to teach you some mathematics! Like learn what "divide by" means! There is no "divide by 0 problem". Yes, we "cannot divide by 0" but that is not a problem!

To "divide b by a" means to multiply b by 1/a, the multiplicative inverse of a. And the "multiplicative inverse" is the number that when multiplied by a gives 1, multiplicative identity.

The reason we cannot divide by 0 is that 0 times any number is 0, not 1. And that is true because of some very basic properties of our number system. One is that our number system has an "additive identity". 0 is the "additive identity" of our number system because a+ 0= a for any number, a. Another is that our number system every number has an "additive inverse", usually called "-a" such that its sum with a is the additive identity, 0, a+ (-a)= a- a= 0. Finally our number system has the "distributive property"- for any three numbers, a, b, and c, a(b+ c)= ab+ ac.

Since a, b, and c can be any three numbers suppose c= 0. Then a(b+ 0)= ab+ a0. But since 0 is the additive identity, b+ 0= b, a(b+ 0)= ab. So we must have ab+ a0= ab and, adding -ab, the additive inverse of ab to both sides of a(b+ 0)= ab= ab+ a0 we get a0= 0.

So which of these "laws" are you willing to give up? The additive identity? Additive inverses? The distributive law? You have to give up at least one of them because together they say that a(0)= 0, not 1.

(Actually there is a way to do that. There is a number system in which it is possible to divide by 0, in which 0 has a a multiplicative inverse. And most people are told about it in an algebra class- they just forget very quickly! You just have to make 0= 1. That is the "multiplicative identity" and the "additive identity" must be the same. a times 0= 0 is the same as 1.

Of course, then we have a= a times 1= a times 0= 0. This number system has only one number!

You say you have developed a number system in which you can divide by 0. Okay does it have more than one number? If it only has one number it is not very useful or interesting! Which is why most people for get about very quickly! If it has more than one number, which of the above laws does not hold? Is there no additive identity? Are there numbers that have no additive inverse (numbers that you cannot subtract)? Is the distributive law not true? It must be one of those and those are all more important than "dividing by 0"!
 
HallsofIvy said:
I would suggest that you approach a math teacher and ask them to teach you some mathematics! Like learn what "divide by" means! There is no "divide by 0 problem". Yes, we "cannot divide by 0" but that is not a problem!

To "divide b by a" means to multiply b by 1/a, the multiplicative inverse of a. And the "multiplicative inverse" is the number that when multiplied by a gives 1, multiplicative identity.

The reason we cannot divide by 0 is that 0 times any number is 0, not 1. And that is true because of some very basic properties of our number system. One is that our number system has an "additive identity". 0 is the "additive identity" of our number system because a+ 0= a for any number, a. Another is that our number system every number has an "additive inverse", usually called "-a" such that its sum with a is the additive identity, 0, a+ (-a)= a- a= 0. Finally our number system has the "distributive property"- for any three numbers, a, b, and c, a(b+ c)= ab+ ac.

Since a, b, and c can be any three numbers suppose c= 0. Then a(b+ 0)= ab+ a0. But since 0 is the additive identity, b+ 0= b, a(b+ 0)= ab. So we must have ab+ a0= ab and, adding -ab, the additive inverse of ab to both sides of a(b+ 0)= ab= ab+ a0 we get a0= 0.

So which of these "laws" are you willing to give up? The additive identity? Additive inverses? The distributive law? You have to give up at least one of them because together they say that a(0)= 0, not 1.

(Actually there is a way to do that. There is a number system in which it is possible to divide by 0, in which 0 has a a multiplicative inverse. And most people are told about it in an algebra class- they just forget very quickly! You just have to make 0= 1. That is the "multiplicative identity" and the "additive identity" must be the same. a times 0= 0 is the same as 1.

Of course, then we have a= a times 1= a times 0= 0. This number system has only one number!

You say you have developed a number system in which you can divide by 0. Okay does it have more than one number? If it only has one number it is not very useful or interesting! Which is why most people for get about very quickly! If it has more than one number, which of the above laws does not hold? Is there no additive identity? Are there numbers that have no additive inverse (numbers that you cannot subtract)? Is the distributive law not true? It must be one of those and those are all more important than "dividing by 0"!
Click to expand...
Thank for your reply.

Imagine if I have found a new number system which links the define number and indefine numbers. There is the solution.

Eg 5 not eaten by any person even then the apple will vanish. Energy will transform. Here the real natural Number can mention how much it transform right.

Exactly when there is + in define and negative in define existed. That leads to a new number system and calculation.

Are you thinking zero is a number or it represent the real numbers.

(A+b)(a-b)=0

Which shows all this equation represent to the real natural worldly numbers.

If 5/0 = in define. Its not math error it represent the other number system. But we sure it is + - values!

How we can be sure its + - if the in define is nothing!

When math has all solution. Why our teacher says don't not divide by zero. Because we does not knows zero is the path of earth number system and in define is the path of in define number system.
 
Y
JeffM said:
Yes, you can read all about them here

en.wikipedia.org

Projectively extended real line - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

and here

en.wikipedia.org

Extended real number line - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

But these are not the real numbers, and even they do not permit all division by zero.
Click to expand...

This projective theorem leads to infinite not in define.
Let me explain if indefine is same then the following equation must be true. 5= 3 :sneaky:

But what happen see here


5/0 =in define not = in define = 3/0

So this two in defines are different and in know that's why 5 is not equal to 3


Right
 
Last edited:
johnnytag007 said:
Y


This projective theorem leads to infinite not in define.
Let me explain if indefine is same then the following equation must be true. 5= 3 :sneaky:

But what happen see here


5/0 =in define not = in define = 3/0

So this two in defines are different and in know that's why 5 is not equal to 3


Right
Click to expand...
You are wrong. Infinity is a number in that system. That is the whole point.

[MATH]\dfrac{5}{0} = \infty = \dfrac{3}{0} \not \implies 5 = 3 [/MATH]
because [MATH]0 * \infty[/MATH] is not defined in that system as you would have seen had you read the article.
 
Imagine if in define is a number then

5/0 = unknown number =\ unknown number = 3 /0

Then 5/0 not equal to 3/0

So this 5/0 leads to in known number system.

If 5 apple not eaten by no person even the apple transform its energy in to some form which in undefined.

U can say its math error for a apple to transform.
But measurement system we doesn't have to measure the transformation.

Hence I told undefined is new number system. Zero is a portal for it.
 
So either you do are not reading these responses or you really know nothing about mathematics at all. Do you even know what the words "defined" and "undefined" (not "indefined") mean? ]
 

HallsofIvy said:
So either you do are not reading these responses or you really know nothing about mathematics at all. Do you even know what the words "defined" and "undefined" (not "indefined") mean? ]
Click to expand...

This is the same words towards Tesla!

I am not saying that I am Tesla.

But I said I have solved .

You should ask me how instead you are saying its not possible.

Its not possible for the person who goes beyond what was said.

I don't even care.....

Cosec 180 is undefined


But I have solved it.

I have said I have done it then I will do God wills. I am sorry if I waste your time.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20200727_212122.jpg
    IMG_20200727_212122.jpg
    833.9 KB · Views: 1
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top