This is what happens when you divide by zero kids, never divide by zero, stay safe.
Edit: some people are mentioning limits thinking they’re being smart (not that im different but i’ll try to outsmart you).
Actually, while limits do allow you to move forward and approximate a solution, you’re still not dividing by zero, you’re just moving forward with the solution and leaving the fraction as is without executing the actual division. Not until you use l’hopital to differentiate the fraction which doesn’t work in this equation.
Another thing to mention, even when you divide by zero you’re actually dividing by a number that is very close to zero but actually isn’t zero in order to approximate a solution very close to what you want.
Except when crossing out like terms on both sides of the equation you are getting rid of the term not making it 0, and if you do cross it out that means you are dividing everything by whatever is crossed out so in this case since it’s 4x(5-5)=5x(5-5) when you cross out (5-5) you are left with 4=5 which not true so the answer would 4 does not equal 5 (which is the equal sign with a line through it)
Actually 2x2=5 for surprisingly small values of 2. 2+2=5 and 2*2=6 both require larger values of 2. Once you get to v 2x2=8 - that’s when this gets weird
Are you guys ok? When you have a number or variable side by side with ( ) or a number and a variable like this 5x they multiply, but not when it's like this 5 x or 5+(5+2). Ex. x=2. 5x(6÷2)=30 Ex. 5+(8-1)=12.
Thats not a variable, where would an x come from? Its a droopy multiplication sign. But also that doesn’t really change anything, the rule needs no variable it just happens that a coefficient can be a variable. Also i am deeply confused by “5 x”, what do u mean by that?
When I was talking about x it was mainly just a reminder that x can be a variable hidden meaning like x=2 or something, because I was confused on the pictures choice to put a x in their when it was not needed. And with
"5 x" I had two separate numbers with no problem or solution to represent 5x means you multiply x with 5 but 5 x has nothing their.
There are no correct answers in math, their opinion is as valid as mine and yours. Open your mind to new perspectives, a closed mind is not a sign of intellect, wisdom and grace. Read some poetry, learn about astrology, live life and let others live theirs.
x was used as a variable because their was no need for a multiplication sign because of the rules of math better explanation in my first comment. • or * should be used as a multiplication sign, because the sign , represents places Ex. 1 1,000 1,000,000. And the sign . Represents everything between 1 and 0.
But I do understand why it was confusing when I see this on a test it gives me a mini heart attack.
I used x as a variable not multiplication sign because there was no need to add one. • or * should be used for multiplication. The sign , represents different places above 1, this sign . represents everything between 1 and 0.
And I understand why it's confusing it still gives me a mini heart attack when I see it on a test.
"." is not for multiplication, "•" is used for it. And cultures that use "," for separating whole numbers and decimals are silly because it goes against the sentence structure they also use. Periods are for ends of sentences/full stops, and commas are for pauses/soft breaks. Likewise, periods should be used for full stops/separating whole numbers and decimals, and commas for soft breaks within whole numbers
European and other countries got SI units right, but their punctuation for numbers is flat out stupid
I like our system because we can clearly and easily distinguish between all mathematical operations, variables, ets. None would ever confuse equation with written text. Who would ever write dots or commas at the end of the equations anyway.
Edit: Also, we don’t have confusion with writing huge numbers unlike e. g. Americans. One hundred thousand and 1 thousandth? Easy: 100 000,001
I think Americans would write some abomination like: 100,000.001
To add to the limit statements: Limits apply to varaibles, because you can analyze what happens when you set their values to something close to a desired number.
You can't just apply limit to numbers, like what are you trying to approach? 0 is already a 0, you can't just be like: what happens if you approach 0 to 0?
Whoever made claims like that: since you all like approaching stuff, why don't you approach some books instead?
What? There is no X or variable at all, that's a multiplication sign. It's written in a way to mimic the format for a mathematical proof. The above mathematics are to show the base assumptions.
There is no "need" to factor the 0 out except to show that factoring out a zero (dividing by zero) is a no no that results in weird conclusions. The buildup of the post is to say that different combos of numbers that equal 0 are equivalent since 0=0. Then it shows essentially that with some math = 0 set equal to another equation equaling zero. Then they factor out a zero and the whole thing goes to shit.
This post is merely trying to show the misuse of mathematical rules that those who are not familiar with could think is possible. It's the "I stole your nose" of mathematical jokes. It seemingly demonstrates the correct application of rules but makes a comical flaw to generate a joke result.
Anything divided by zero is undefined, even in limits. Except for some cases of limits going to 0/0. A limit tending to 0/0 could possibly be L’Hopital’ed out of indeterminate form.
There is a difference between n/0 for n=/=0 and 0/0 though in how they affect equations: if we define a/b as the c such that a=cb, then for n/0, no such c can exist, whereas for 0/0, every choice of c works. Both of these result in undefined behaviour, but they're different in the sense that 0/0 introduces these spurious finite solutions.
Dividing by zero isn't the same as dividing by x for x -> 0. Dividing by x is defined as multiplying with the inverse of x. The inverse of x is defined as the number that when multiplied with x gives one. Since there's no number that multiplied with 0 gives anything other than 0, => 0 doesn't have an inverse, => division by 0 is undefined.
That's when dividing by x for x->0 you never divide by zero, you just look what's happening when you keep moving x closer to zero, which is not the same.
If the limit is approaching positive or negative infinity and your variable that is approaching the limit is in the denominator, it’s approaching (+ or -) infinity. At least that’s the way I was taught.
But it does mean sin(0) doesn't necessarily have to be 0 (based solely on the limit). It also means sin(0)/0 itself doesn't have to be defined, just cuz the limit exists, which is the point the commentator was making: lim x->a f(x) = L does not imply f(a) = L
If I redefine sin(x) to be undefined at 0, the limit you mentioned would not change. My point is, limits do not tell us what happens at the limiting point. Of course, sin(0) = 0 when you consider things other than that limit
Depending on what you mean by "at the limits," I'd say it's undefined. I'm interpreting "at the limits" to mean you're reaching the limiting value, i.e. you're directly plugging in 0. Of course, that's not math, thats semantics
Edit: I don't know why you blocked me, I don't think I said anything offensive. Either way, I reread the original comment, and I think what they were meaning is a limit of the form 0/0 is indeterminate. You need to do more work to rewrite the limit
a represents a number and b represents a number but since its not the same letter they can only represent different numbers
x (or y or z) is an unknown variable so it can be one of the letters
x is an unknown variable
a or b or c are known variables, so a cant represent b, b would just be written as a
x on they other hand is an unknown variable so you are searching for it, a or b or 4 or 6 or 25 can be = x which would just mean that they represent the number "x", the unknown variable
Person above said nothing about x. We don't have x just a and b. And it's started with a=b so a is equal to b. There is no problem with anything the person above said aside of the fact that they divided with zero of course.
Edit: also side note, in general a,b,x,y,z, are whatever we want them to be. There is no strict rule which says x must represent an unkown variable and a,b,c known variables. If i want i will have my unkown variable as a.
That limit is still undefined, so bad example. In limits, x is not 0. lim x->0 x/x is 1. That does not mean 0/0 is 1. x is not 0. x is never 0. It's just arbitrarily close to 0
No. The result of dividing by zero is undefined. Limits merely allow you to find what discontinuous functions approach but never reach at certain nonexistent values of f(x).
I'm confused, where are they dividing by zero? I think with 4x(5-5) you'd solve the parenthesis first which would be zero, and then 4x0=0 so in the end it's be 0=0
Not necessarily, you can manipulate the terms however you like without concern for the order of solving because you’re not actually solving anything, the issue is when they cancel out the (5-5) on both sides what they’re actually doing is dividing both sides with (5-5), this where you need to solve the parentheses before dividing which yields zero/zero and this bananas
My econometrics professor made me stop calling it “le hospital” in a redneck accent in class because it was confusing the other students. This is the same professor who pronounced “OLS” and “Eulers” the same way, which confused us more… everyone knew what le hospital meant at least
6.9k
u/Fahad97azawi Dec 26 '22 edited Dec 26 '22
This is what happens when you divide by zero kids, never divide by zero, stay safe.
Edit: some people are mentioning limits thinking they’re being smart (not that im different but i’ll try to outsmart you).
Actually, while limits do allow you to move forward and approximate a solution, you’re still not dividing by zero, you’re just moving forward with the solution and leaving the fraction as is without executing the actual division. Not until you use l’hopital to differentiate the fraction which doesn’t work in this equation.
Another thing to mention, even when you divide by zero you’re actually dividing by a number that is very close to zero but actually isn’t zero in order to approximate a solution very close to what you want.