|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Popo in your mouth Crew
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:41 pm
If 97/97 equals 1
4/4 equals 1
1/1 equals 1
9297/9297 equals 1
-87/-87 equals 1
......-2/-2 equals 1
13/13 equals 1
Then 0/0 (Zero divided by Zero)equals 1
And thats how the big bang came into existance.
Prove me wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:46 am
The Brahmasphutasiddhanta of Brahmagupta (598–66 cool is the earliest known text to treat zero as a number in its own right and to define operations involving zero.[1] The author failed, however, in his attempt to explain division by zero: his definition can be easily proven to lead to algebraic absurdities. According to Brahmagupta,
A positive or negative number when divided by zero is a fraction with the zero as denominator. Zero divided by a negative or positive number is either zero or is expressed as a fraction with zero as numerator and the finite quantity as denominator. Zero divided by zero is zero.
In 830, Mahavira tried unsuccessfully to correct Brahmagupta's mistake in his book in Ganita Sara Samgraha: "A number remains unchanged when divided by zero."[1]
Bhaskara II (1114–1185) tried to solve the problem by defining (in modern notation) textstylefrac{n}{0}=infty.[1] This definition makes some sense, as discussed below, but can lead to paradoxes if not treated carefully. These paradoxes were not treated until modern times.
Done proving now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:12 am
You can't divide by Zero dramallama
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:37 am
Frog Apocalypse The Brahmasphutasiddhanta of Brahmagupta (598–66 cool is the earliest known text to treat zero as a number in its own right and to define operations involving zero.[1] The author failed, however, in his attempt to explain division by zero: his definition can be easily proven to lead to algebraic absurdities. According to Brahmagupta, A positive or negative number when divided by zero is a fraction with the zero as denominator. Zero divided by a negative or positive number is either zero or is expressed as a fraction with zero as numerator and the finite quantity as denominator. Zero divided by zero is zero. In 830, Mahavira tried unsuccessfully to correct Brahmagupta's mistake in his book in Ganita Sara Samgraha: "A number remains unchanged when divided by zero."[1] Bhaskara II (1114–1185) tried to solve the problem by defining (in modern notation) textstylefrac{n}{0}=infty.[1] This definition makes some sense, as discussed below, but can lead to paradoxes if not treated carefully. These paradoxes were not treated until modern times. Done proving now. But thats the great thing about the scientific world. Notice that every time we think we got something down pat we end up mind ******** by some new idea that also makes perfect logical sense. They thought to big while they needed to think simply. Division is the inverse of multiplication. What is zero times zero? Nothing. So that must mean zero divided by zero is every number in existance at once. Thus the Big Bang.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Popo in your mouth Crew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:06 pm
blue-eyes white dragon. that is all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:38 pm
Frog Apocalypse The Brahmasphutasiddhanta of Brahmagupta (598–66 cool is the earliest known text to treat zero as a number in its own right and to define operations involving zero.[1] The author failed, however, in his attempt to explain division by zero: his definition can be easily proven to lead to algebraic absurdities. According to Brahmagupta, A positive or negative number when divided by zero is a fraction with the zero as denominator. Zero divided by a negative or positive number is either zero or is expressed as a fraction with zero as numerator and the finite quantity as denominator. Zero divided by zero is zero. In 830, Mahavira tried unsuccessfully to correct Brahmagupta's mistake in his book in Ganita Sara Samgraha: "A number remains unchanged when divided by zero."[1] Bhaskara II (1114–1185) tried to solve the problem by defining (in modern notation) textstylefrac{n}{0}=infty.[1] This definition makes some sense, as discussed below, but can lead to paradoxes if not treated carefully. These paradoxes were not treated until modern times. Done proving now. tl;dr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dallas Overload Vice Captain
|
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:00 pm
Jezuz Ch4ist made the Ea4th an al teh animools DURRRR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:19 pm
You can divide one object into one group.
You cannot divide one thing into zero groups.
EX~
You have a two gummy bears.
You can put them into two groups, with one each.
You can put them in one group with two in it.
You can not put them in zero groups. It's not possible to take one object and put it into zero groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:51 pm
this is way above my lvl of math i'v only been going to class for 3 weeks...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
