Zero divided by zero revisited

[Age]

You forgot to provide supporting arguments, as required by the rules of this forum. If you can provide such arguments, I will reply.

One only has to look at a computer or calculator to come to see and understand that 'you' can NOT divide by zero.

However, and of course, if 'you' CAN divide by zero, then, please, explain HOW, EXACTLY, and what answer 'you' get/got, EXACTLY.

Now,
P1. For EVERY one else and for EVERY computer/calculator 'they' can NOT divide by zero.
P2. No one has YET shown HOW 'they' CAN divide by zero.
Therefore, until 'you', or someone else, can SHOW, EXACTLY, how 'you/they' CAN divide by zero, then 'this argument' will suffice.

I'm sorry, Age, but I can't write a thousand-word essay in this forum to explain mathematical philosophy to you. You will need to research it for yourself.

'you' OBVIOUSLY do NOT STILL RECOGNIZE, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND that 'you' can NOT divide by zero.

Also, since 'you' can NOT EXPLAIN so-called 'mathematical philosophy', TO 'me', then ARE 'you' ABLE TO DEFINE the words 'mathematical' AND 'philosophy', and then JUST EXPLAIN HOW those two words COULD RELATE TOGETHER here?

If no, then do 'you' REALLY KNOW what 'you' are talking ABOUT and ALLEGING here?

If yes, then are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE?

But I would ask you: you obviously believe that 0/0=1 is fallacious,

'you' could NOT BE FURTHER MISTAKEN here "alan1000".

and thus, n/n=1 is false when applied to the number 0. What are your arguments, exactly?

I HAVE NONE BECAUSE I DO NOT NEED ANY, BECAUSE 'your' first CLAIM and BELIEF here was False AND Wrong, FROM THE OUTSET, AND TO BEGIN WITH.

[alan1000]

However, it is a genuine philosophical problem in arithmetic, so let's try again, shall we?

Is it? Do you have any resources to show that mathematicians in general agree that this is a genuine problem?

Are you not able to decide for yourself whether a philosophical problem exists? Do you need a majority vote to reassure you?

"Mathematicians in general" are a poor guide to sound philosophy. They confuse the Parallel Postulate with Euclid's Postulate 5; they embrace the most brazen and outrageous fallacies in their efforts to prove that 0 is an even number. "Mathematicians in general" are not notable for their critical thinking skills.

[alan1000]

One only has to look at a computer or calculator to come to see and understand that 'you' can NOT divide by zero.

However, and of course, if 'you' CAN divide by zero, then, please, explain HOW, EXACTLY, and what answer 'you' get/got, EXACTLY.

Now,
P1. For EVERY one else and for EVERY computer/calculator 'they' can NOT divide by zero.
P2. No one has YET shown HOW 'they' CAN divide by zero.
Therefore, until 'you', or someone else, can SHOW, EXACTLY, how 'you/they' CAN divide by zero, then 'this argument' will suffice.

I'm sorry, Age, but I can't write a thousand-word essay in this forum to explain mathematical philosophy to you. You will need to research it for yourself.

'you' OBVIOUSLY do NOT STILL RECOGNIZE, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND that 'you' can NOT divide by zero.

Also, since 'you' can NOT EXPLAIN so-called 'mathematical philosophy', TO 'me', then ARE 'you' ABLE TO DEFINE the words 'mathematical' AND 'philosophy', and then JUST EXPLAIN HOW those two words COULD RELATE TOGETHER here?

If no, then do 'you' REALLY KNOW what 'you' are talking ABOUT and ALLEGING here?

If yes, then are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE?

But I would ask you: you obviously believe that 0/0=1 is fallacious,

'you' could NOT BE FURTHER MISTAKEN here "alan1000".

and thus, n/n=1 is false when applied to the number 0. What are your arguments, exactly?

I HAVE NONE BECAUSE I DO NOT NEED ANY, BECAUSE 'your' first CLAIM and BELIEF here was False AND Wrong, FROM THE OUTSET, AND TO BEGIN WITH.

I'm sorry, Age, but this has to be my final reply to your comments. I can only recommend that you read Bertrand Russell's "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy", which attempts to explain the whole subject in terms which a lay person with a reasonably good education can understand.

Russell, as you know, was one of the founding fathers of set theory (and number theory in general), and in partnership with A N Whitehead helped to revolutionise the study of mathematics in the earlier part of the 20th C.

[Flannel Jesus]

However, it is a genuine philosophical problem in arithmetic, so let's try again, shall we?

Is it? Do you have any resources to show that mathematicians in general agree that this is a genuine problem?

Are you not able to decide for yourself whether a philosophical problem exists?

Perhaps I misunderstood your words. "it is a genuine philosophical problem in arithmetic" makes it sound like it's not just a problem YOU have in your own head, it makes it sound like it's a problem that exists in the world of mathematics at large.

I see now that it's just a problem you have in your head. That makes sense.

[Skepdick]

But is there any reason to prefer one answer over the others? Because it is obvious that, in any philosophical discourse, where apparently-conclusive arguments lead to contradictory outcomes, the enquiry must have taken a wrong turn somewhere. Is there any over-reaching argument to favour one solution over the others?

This follows straight from the Formalist world-view

Symbols/strings/characters don't have any meaning other than the meaning imposed on them by the humans using them.

Mathematics is a game. With made-up rules. Once the purpose of the rules is understood anyone can make up their own.

[Age]

I'm sorry, Age, but I can't write a thousand-word essay in this forum to explain mathematical philosophy to you. You will need to research it for yourself.

'you' OBVIOUSLY do NOT STILL RECOGNIZE, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND that 'you' can NOT divide by zero.

Also, since 'you' can NOT EXPLAIN so-called 'mathematical philosophy', TO 'me', then ARE 'you' ABLE TO DEFINE the words 'mathematical' AND 'philosophy', and then JUST EXPLAIN HOW those two words COULD RELATE TOGETHER here?

If no, then do 'you' REALLY KNOW what 'you' are talking ABOUT and ALLEGING here?

If yes, then are 'you' ABSOLUTELY SURE?

But I would ask you: you obviously believe that 0/0=1 is fallacious,

'you' could NOT BE FURTHER MISTAKEN here "alan1000".

and thus, n/n=1 is false when applied to the number 0. What are your arguments, exactly?

I HAVE NONE BECAUSE I DO NOT NEED ANY, BECAUSE 'your' first CLAIM and BELIEF here was False AND Wrong, FROM THE OUTSET, AND TO BEGIN WITH.

I'm sorry, Age, but this has to be my final reply to your comments.

If 'this' IS 'the way' 'things' HAVE TO BE TO, and FOR, 'you' "alan1000", then 'this' is certainly okay with, and for, me.

But since I have ALREADY SHOWN that 'you' can NOT divide by zero, and 'you' OBVIOUSLY have NOT YET SHOWN otherwise, then 'this' CERTAINLY EXPLAINS WHY 'this' WILL BE 'your' FINAL reply to my comments.

I can only recommend that you read Bertrand Russell's "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy", which attempts to explain the whole subject in terms which a lay person with a reasonably good education can understand.

I have ALREADY RECOMMENDED that if 'you' want to CONTINUE ON BELIEVING and CLAIMING that zero COULD BE divided by zero, then 'you' EXPLAIN HOW, EXACTLY. 'you' COULD even USE 'an argument', if 'you' so WANTED TO.

BUT, as of 'now' 'you' have FAILED COMPLETELY TO SHOW or EXPLAIN ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' ABOUT HOW 'you' COULD divide by zero.

Russell, as you know, was one of the founding fathers of set theory (and number theory in general), and in partnership with A N Whitehead helped to revolutionise the study of mathematics in the earlier part of the 20th C.

BUT I NEVER KNEW 'this'.

WHY would 'you' even BEGIN TO ASSUME such A 'thing'?

What I do ALREADY KNOW, however, is that 'you' have NOWHERE SHOWN NOR EXPLAINED HOW 'you' COULD divide by zero. AND, since 'you' can NOT do 'this', what 'you' CLAIM here in 'your' opening post is just NONSENSICAL, ILLOGICAL, and/or just PLAIN False, AND Wrong.

'you' can NOT divide by zero. So, ALL of 'your' OWN proposed four positions can NOT be supported, and 'your' INABILITY TO REFUTE and/nor COUNTER 'this' PROVES my CLAIM here MORE and/or FURTHER.

[alan1000]

As a final comment, I thank Skepdick for making the only reply in the entire thread which demonstrated any actual knowledge of mathematics, or evidence of critical thinking skills, or understanding of the philsophical method.

[Age]

As a final comment, I thank Skepdick for making the only reply in the entire thread which demonstrated any actual knowledge of mathematics, or evidence of critical thinking skills, or understanding of the philsophical method.

Do you still believe that zero can be divided by zero?

If yes, then what is the answer, exactly?

[nemos]

...Mathematics is a game...

Which just someone doesn't play with. Maybe the atomic bomb is also a toy for someone, after all it was created in the same sandbox where mathematics is played.

[Skepdick]

...Mathematics is a game...

Which just someone doesn't play with. Maybe the atomic bomb is also a toy for someone, after all it was created in the same sandbox where mathematics is played.

Anyone can play with it - there are no gatekeepers.

[nemos]

Anyone can play with it - there are no gatekeepers.

I guess it is as you say.
Matches are also not considered a toy, although there are people who like to play with them - they seem to be called pyromaniacs.

[Skepdick]

I guess it is as you say.
Matches are also not considered a toy, although there are people who like to play with them - they seem to be called pyromaniacs.

You call it pyromania - I call it science.

Does it catch fire? Lets find out! Empirically.

[nemos]

You call it pyromania - I call it science.

I may have misunderstood something. Aren't pyromaniacs the ones who strove for the excitement of the beauty and majesty of fire and the fun it brings, and not for understanding it at all? There is an opinion that understanding kills beauty, one must think that along with it also fun.
I personally think nuke mushrooms are very pretty too. I wonder what an esthete would be called who would be willing to make a nuclear explosion from time to time just to satisfy his thirst for fun.

[alan1000]

A recent post on this question quickly descended into levity. However, it is a genuine philosophical problem in arithmetic, so let's try again, shall we?

There are four possible answers:

0/0 = 0 (based on the intuitive supposition that only zero quantities are involved, so there cannot be a non-zero answer).

0/0 = 1 (based on the supposition that n/n=1)

0/0 = infinity (assuming 0 = h)

0/0 = Ø (the division fails because the null set is indivisible)

All four positions can be supported by respectable mathematical arguments. What's your preference?

I'm gonna go with A: 0/0 = 0 (nothing all the way - kind of agree with nemos)

Supporting arguments?

It is not customary to supply supporting arguments when quoting orthodoxy.

[alan1000]

As a final comment, I thank Skepdick for making the only reply in the entire thread which demonstrated any actual knowledge of mathematics, or evidence of critical thinking skills, or understanding of the philsophical method.

Do you still believe that zero can be divided by zero?

If yes, then what is the answer, exactly?

Age, have you understood a single sentence I posted????