An example of why dividing by zero can't make sense.

[JonF]

Oh, she was a pip. Much like Dave Hawkins in that she was astoundingly ignorant and bullheaded but somehow incited people to post great refutuations and explanations.

We did finally convince her that at least in theory isochron dating works the way it is explained at talkorigins.org. But she was an old-earth-young-life creationist.

[Leonhard]

Back in the day on talk.origins Zoe Althrop insisted for literally years that X/0 = X for all X because it wasn't taking anything away from X.

[JonF]

Back in the day on talk.origins Zoe Althrop insisted for literally years that X/0 = X for all X because it wasn't taking anything away from X.

[rwatts]

Here's a minor puzzle: for a and b belonging to a field of numbers with well defined multiplication and division, why is the following wrong and what does it have to do with the thread title?




Some of you might recognize it from High School, but its still a good lesson.

Like phank said, in that step 4.

If you divide both sides by (a-b) you get a+b = b.

It seems as if you can do divisions, right up to that point, then the operation can become a nonsense.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

This one's got a lovely bit of obfuscation to it. I dig it.

[phank]

Looks to me like, in the 4th step, you divided through by zero (that is, if a = b, a - b=0. You divided both sides by (a - b). Can't do that.)

[Leonhard]

Here's a minor puzzle: for a and b belonging to a field of numbers with well defined multiplication and division, why is the following wrong and what does it have to do with the thread title?




Some of you might recognize it from High School, but its still a good lesson.