Re: VOTE on whether 1/oo = 0
From: David W. Cantrell (DWCantrell_at_sigmaxi.org)
Date: 07/15/04
- Next message: Gerry Myerson: "Re: reducing large fractions"
- Previous message: Psycic_Deamon: "Converting QS to MPQS & Help on Large Prime Variations"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Re: VOTE on whether 1/oo = 0"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: VOTE on whether 1/oo = 0"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: VOTE on whether 1/oo = 0"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 15 Jul 2004 00:09:45 GMT
"|-|erc" <gotch@beauty.com> wrote:
> "David W. Cantrell" <DWCantrell@sigmaxi.org> wrote in
> > > I do have a liberal perspective on the topic also.
> > >
> > > IF you define division by infinity to start with
> > > THEN you could assign that result as 0.
> >
> > I advise against doing that.
> > It's better to define the elements of the extension and the appropriate
> > operations _in general_ first. Done correctly, 1/oo = 0 would then
> > follow
>
> notice my disclaimer before I state that the result could be 0.
>
> If you were given a test
>
> 1/oo =
>
> a/ 1
> b/ 0
> c/ oo
> d/ 10
>
> The answer is 0. Why? because the questioner put the question into a
> form that clarifies "division" by 0 is allowable syntax.
>
> Given the denominator can accept oo as a construct, the answer is 0.
>
> I assume this is the logic behind Rheimann sphere, its just locating the
> electron due north in the electron cloud isn't it?
No.
David Cantrell
- Next message: Gerry Myerson: "Re: reducing large fractions"
- Previous message: Psycic_Deamon: "Converting QS to MPQS & Help on Large Prime Variations"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Re: VOTE on whether 1/oo = 0"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: VOTE on whether 1/oo = 0"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: VOTE on whether 1/oo = 0"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
