x/0 ??

I know it is said that anything divided by 0 is undefined, but is it possible that x/0 (where x <> 0) could equal some constant (let's call it @)
note that 0/0 is still undefined, but 1/0 = 2/0 = 3/0 =... = @
I thought about this going to sleep late one night, so it may be flawed, but just wondering if anyone could see how you could use this to proove untrue stuff like 1=2 or something like that.

Note: you can't do stuff like this:
3/0 = @ = 4/0 ==> 3=4
Because that leaves out:
3/0 = 4/0 ==> 3*(0/0) = 4*(0/0) ==> 3 = 4
because this involves 0/0.

Sorry if no-one undestands, this is just a thought.

@ equals positive infinity?
But if x < 0 then @ equals negative infinity.

Why would 3/0 be equal to 3*(0/0)?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sql_lall
I thought about this going to sleep late one night

---

Note to self... stop thinking about women and/or goats and try to solve mathematical problems :eek:

you can proove anything if your premisses are inconsistent

isnt that imaginary numbers?

Like E = MC^2

if you apply that past the speed of light
then you get into the imaginary numbers
ones that arent true. but are made up to
solve problems.

Like
the square root of 4 is 2 and also -2 two seperate values
yet there is no square root of -4
its done with imaginary numbers ?

MC^2 is the amount of enery that mass represents, nothing to do with imaginary numbers really.
The imaginary number i is defined as sqrt(-1), which explores another dimension which with real numbers is called complex numbers. To calculate with complex numbers you use euler transformation as follows:
e^ix = cos(x) + i sin(x)
there's a lot more cool stuff to read about complex numbers, you can find around the net for instance

Quote from Riis:

Quote:

---

@ equals positive infinity?
But if x < 0 then @ equals negative infinity.
Why would 3/0 be equal to 3*(0/0)?

---

It's not that 3/0 = 3*(0/0), just that that is how the cancellation was made, and so the final result of 3=4 was wrong. (Which it is.)

Also, take note that anything/0 currently has no value (yup, no even INFINITY), but is referred to as "Undefined". What this is about is whether it should have a value, and what form it wold take.

Kedaman, what did you mean by "you can proove anything if your premisses are inconsistent". Is this about how there are always things you can't prove??

Finally, similarly to how you can graph imaginary numbers, you can also graph Numbers with @. It would be kinda like binary, as each real number would have two states, with or without @. (Notice that @*@ = @)

on the contrary, you can proove anything

No you are thinking about another equation by einstien umm i cna't remember it exactly however it is something like T = (something) / something else but anyways (i will look it upp later. Ass you approach the spead of light you get infinite time or maybe mass I cant remember

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gandalf_Grey_
No you are thinking about another equation by einstien umm i cna't remember it exactly however it is something like T = (something) / something else but anyways (i will look it upp later. Ass you approach the spead of light you get infinite time or maybe mass I cant remember

---

I suppose you mean the time contraction due to relativistic velocities. Should be a factor reverse proportional to the root of reverse squared velocity per squared lightspeed

Quote:

---

Posted by kedaman
The imaginary number i is defined
as sqrt(-1), which explores another
dimension which with real numbers
is called complex numbers.

---

kedaman is the reason that
taking the sqr root of a negative
number produces a complex number
because of the inverse nature of roots?
-2 * -2 = 4 not -4

And would the cyclic manner in which
imaginary numbers move presented below
be consistent with your findings? :)

Code:

---


i = sqr(-1)
i^2 = i * i  = sqr(-1)*sqr(-1) = -1
i^3 = i^2 * i = -1 * i = -i
i^4 = i^3 * i = -i * i = -i^2 = +1
i^5 = i^4 * i = 1 * i = i and so on.......

---

Complex multiplication and division will indeed be additive for the angle, reason why you note its cyclic behavour.

There is no reason why complex numbers are used, other than that they are useful for a range of applications, math is tool to model with, not the representation of reality.

My teacher once told me that in designing fans, or anything of a similar nature (rotating blades through air), you constantly use i to figure stuff out. (I don't know how, but that's what he said...)

Also, the complex plane (mapping of a + ib) can be used to make som COOL fractals!!

Also the Einstein theing was that if you reach the speed of light, you have infinite mass, so you can't go any faster (or get any fatter :p). Also, no time will pass.
It is easy to mix this up with the fact that as you get closer and closer to a black hole, it seems to an observer you get slower and slower, eventually stopping.

about Relativistic velocity, you won't get any fatter in your own reference frame, however from the point of view of someone passing by at close to ligthspeed, you will be a fat, short and motionless guy.