Poll: 6÷2(1+2)

6/2(1+2) = ?

  • 9

    Votes: 516 68.9%
  • 1

    Votes: 233 31.1%

  • Total voters
    749
Associate
Joined
23 Feb 2008
Posts
970
a number divided by 0 is not infinity... It is undefined. Saying a number divided by 0 is infinity implies that 0 times infinity can be whatever number you want.

Anyway, what about -1/0?
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Posts
48,104
Location
On the hoods
a number divided by 0 is not infinity... It is undefined. Saying a number divided by 0 is infinity implies that 0 times infinity can be whatever number you want.

Anyway, what about -1/0?

The answer is infinity, but it is infinity that is undefined, not the answer.

And -1/0 is -infinity.

And yes, before you ask, infinity can be positive or negative.
 

wmb

wmb

Associate
Joined
30 Jul 2004
Posts
177
Location
Cumbria
They think its 9 because by convention it is 9

we introduce these conventions in order to remove ambiguity

by having an order of operations you remove the need to use extra parenthesis

the answer is only 1 if you chose to ignore convention and assume that the question is either asking something it isn't or is ambiguous with a possible answer of 1 or 9. With convention the ambiguity is removed and the answer is 9.

But the equation is not presented in a CONVENTIONAL format, therefore it is AMBIGUOUS. If it was presented in a conventional way, there would be no argument one way or the other.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
The answer is infinity, but it is infinity that is undefined, not the answer.

And -1/0 is -infinity.

And yes, before you ask, infinity can be positive or negative.

I believe this is incorrect.

You cannot divide something finite and existing into an infinite number of non-existent parts.

Even if some branch of mathematics says you can, it contradicts reality.
 
Associate
Joined
29 Jul 2005
Posts
445
Location
Matlock
Basically if you do multiplying before diving you get one answer and if you do dividing before multiplying you get another answer. The question is ambiguous and really both answers are correct.
 
Associate
Joined
23 Feb 2008
Posts
970
And yet you can have enough 9s that 0.99r is equal to 1?

Admit the contradiction.

There is no contradiction. I don't run out of 9s... there is no limited supply of 9s and there is nothing that comes after it. However, you can't have infinity 0s, then add a 1 on after. If you could, the 1 would have a value of 10^-infinity, which is 0.

The answer is infinity, but it is infinity that is undefined, not the answer.

And -1/0 is -infinity.

And yes, before you ask, infinity can be positive or negative.

You said that all numbers divided by 0 are infinity though, so what happens when you multiply infinity by 0?
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Mar 2004
Posts
8,436
Location
Kent
We don't say 1/0 is infinity, we say 1/0 is undefined ;)

However, if you take 1/x, we say that as x -> 0 (i.e: as x gets smaller and smaller), then 1/x -> infinity.

You read "->" as "tends to"
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
In the limit as x->0 that is exactly what you can conceptually do.

In reality, however, you cannot as I said, turn something that exists into something that doesn't exist by dividing it.

Otherwise, you should also be able to do the reverse. Bring something into existence from nothing.

So infinity lots of 0 should create something, no? If it doesn't, then you have a problem! Things can disappear into non-existence and not come back!
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
And yet you can have enough 9s that 0.99r is equal to 1?

Admit the contradiction.

I think I understand where you're coming from.

Put it this way, there is no such thing as "an infinitely small number". Any number that is > 0 is finitely small.

1 - 0.9r does not yield an infinitely small number. It yields 0.

0.9r builds the number 1 using an infinite number of building blocks. But it does build the number 1. We have trouble because we only tend to look at the first n building blocks in our minds. And the first n blocks build a number < 1. But there are always more blocks that we can't see.

Given that there is no infinitely small number, 1/x as x->0 does not define or attempt to define 1/0.
 
Caporegime
Joined
28 Jun 2005
Posts
48,104
Location
On the hoods
There is no contradiction. I don't run out of 9s... there is no limited supply of 9s and there is nothing that comes after it. However, you can't have infinity 0s, then add a 1 on after. If you could, the 1 would have a value of 10^-infinity, which is 0.

So you can have infinite 9s but not infinite 0s?

If 0.99r=1 then 0.0r1 must =0 if only because 0.99r+0.0r1 must = 1+0.
 
Back
Top Bottom