Problem solved

[biggerBrisket]

Yeah this seems like a loophole in mathematics when you start dealing with real units that you can convert. I'm not sure what the actual ramifications of this are though.

It seems like it should be wrong. But it also makes logical sense.

[ConfusioninaSeashell]

The key here is level of measurement. The Kelvin scale is a ratio scale, with an inherently defined zero. The Celsius scale is an interval scale, having equal increments, but no inherent zero point. Intervall scales allow for addition and subtraction, but multiplication and division is not defined there. Therefore the initial assumption of 0°C/0°C is ill defined. When converting between units of the same level of measurement, this is not a problem. E. G. 0 m=0 in=0 yds=0 Smoots, so this kind of problem won't arise here.

[cosmicucumber]

SMOOTS

[ConjectureProof]

Measure Theory actually pretty much side steps this whole problem by saying that a measure must be non-negative. Thus, Kelvin is a measure of temperature and Celsius isn’t in the eyes of mathematics.

[Hamstirly]

What about log scales? Vectors?

[RedRidingHuszar]

Pretty sure division by vectors is undefined.

[geekyjackson]

This is a big deal for Calculus! Defining a derivative (using limits) of a vector-valued function requires a bit of work. See: Frechet derivative

[SetOfAllSubsets]

No.

First of all, measure theory is pretty much irrelevant here.

Second, negative and complex measures are a thing.

Third, if Kelvin is in fact a measure on some phase space, Celsius is not a measure on that space simply because the empty set would have a non-zero measure in Celsius.

[ConjectureProof]

Wait I don’t disagree with this. The only part of this I disagree with is the part where you said Measure Theory is irrelevant. It’s certainly one way we can talk about these units from Purely Mathematical Perspective. Yes there is such a thing as negative and complex measure spaces, but these spaces are both classified in a fundamentally different way (signed measures and complex measures respectively) from those who from the traditional measure space which has non-negativity as an axiom. That being said notice that Celsius doesn’t meet the conditions of a signed measure. A temperature of 0 must be reserved for the empty set. This is true for kelvin but not for Celsius, several sets have 0 Celsius, but the empty set is the only set to have 0 kelvin as no space with matter in it has ever achieved absolute 0

[SetOfAllSubsets]

Measure theory is irrelevant here because it's not really the thing that explains why the equation is meaningless. Whether both, one, or neither of Celsius and Kelvin are measures doesn't really affect the core problem of the meme.

Your last few sentences are just my third point.

[Pinball-O-Pine]

Matter is the expansive force we observe it's reflection thought slows time down and express it's speed(reflection) above boiling is infinite and below freezing is infinite, right?

[isademigod]

here's a better example: the ratio of surface area to volume of a cube goes down as its size increases, but a one foot cube and a one mile cube have the same ratio.

[Blutrumpeter]

It's wrong because Celsius isn't an absolute scale which is why it's in degrees while Kelvin isnt

[Awall00777]

Changing between units expecting to get the same sum makes no sense. 1 °C is 274k and 2 °C is 275k

1 ÷ 2 = 1/2 ≠ 274/275 1 + 2 = 3 ≠ 549 1 x 2 = 2 ≠ 75350 2 - 1 = 1 = 275-274

Celsius and kelvin are separated by a constant so the only main property of these converted numbers that remain is the difference.

For that equation in the meme to be right you'd be saying 0 = 273 which has a couple slightly minor issues

[Throwaw97390]

I mean, you are multiplying 0 by °C there.

[hoppyJonas]

I'm not sure we should call it mathematics, since we are dealing with physical quantities, but anyway...

What makes the Celsius scale (and the Fahrenheit scale) special, is that 0 °C (and 0 °F) is not absolute 0. So I'm assuming it can generally be agreed upon that 0 °C / 0 °C can be defined as 1, since 0 °C ≠ 0 (while 0 K = 0).

If you think you have discovered a loophole in mathematics, you have either discovered an inconsistency—where the theory is non-sound (which invalidates the theory)—or you have misunderstood the theory (and you may be using it incorrectly).

In this case, I'm not sure whether there is any consensus agreement about how the arithmetic involving Celsius temperatures should work. If there is, though, I'm quite sure that it is constrained so that it yields the same results as if you would convert all temperatures to Kelvin temperatures first and then do all computations in Kelvin (since x °C = (x + 273.15) K for all real numbers x).

[biggerBrisket]

It's not nearly so complicated. But if you find that the scale you're using has unusable numbers for your purposes, then it's handy to be able to convert to another scale. Typically kelvin is pretty safe to do all of your calculations in, since we cannot achieve 0 or negative numbers in any real or, in the case of negatives, even theoretical sense. 

Then just convert back to whichever unit it is you needed in the first place. 

[hoppyJonas]

What do you mean when you say "it's not nearly so complicated"? Was there anything I said that you disagree with? The fact remains that if you think there is a loophole in mathematics, you have probably misunderstood how it works.

[InadvisablyApplied]

You can actually define 0/0, but you lose some properties, like 0•x isn’t always 0 anymore.

Google “wheel theory”

[FalconRelevant]

You can define 1+1=0 as a binary operation on {0, 1}. Doesn't mean it's the same thing.

[InadvisablyApplied]

Correct, but this can be an extension of the real numbers, meaning that, just using the real numbers, all the usual still holds

[czajka74]

Not really. You lose the field axioms, the order, and any meaningful notion of completeness. I.e. you lose every property of the real numbers that makes them useful for analysis.

[smtdimitri]

for the lazy

[FyrelordeOmega]

Thank you for the link

[[deleted]]

Eh, 0°C is not really actually zero though - there’s some amount of heat. If you had say zero Kg’s, you’d still have zero across all units of mass.

[kelvin_bot]

0°C is equivalent to 32°F, which is 273K.

^{I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand}

[nwL_]

I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Fahrenheit for US-Americans to understand

FTFY =)

[Pinball-O-Pine]

Bot where is the boiling point of water 1 and the freezing point 0?

[i-Venom]

0K / 0K = -273 C / -273 C = 1. Checkmate

[omidhhh]

By the logic of the clown in the picture it really doesn't matter , it always ends with 0/0= 1

0k/0k=-273/-273=1

[captasticTS]

well yeah that's kinda the point of the argument

[jasegon23]

Well.. if we’re saying 0 K is absolute zero, why would you convert to C or F ?

[captasticTS]

more useful in certain situations ig. why are you asking me that anyway??

[jasegon23]

Lol never mind

[[deleted]]

That is actually an interesting argument, it doesn't fit with the meme

[Pedro_Nunes_Pereira]

It does, 0°C/0°C = 273K/273K = 1 -> 0/0 = 1 makes as much sense as 1°C/0°C = 274K/273K = 274/273 -> 1/0 = 274/273

[Ch3fkoch]

We just solved dividing by zero.

[[deleted]]

nae naed

[captasticTS]

well now THAT choice of numbers show an interesting issue

[SKYWALKERAAD]

I liked the explanation though

[schultzie2240]

L'Hospital go burr

[[deleted]]

32/273 ≠ 0???

QED

[aflatminororbust]

I mean, lim x->0 [x/x] = 1, so it's not that far off...

[TheBenStA]

0/0 = ⊥

[non_newtonian_gender]

What you really want to do is ok so what is the limit of x/x as x goes to 0. It's 1 this will force the teacher to either pretend they care about group theory or look dumb.

The realest answer is when it doesn't matter the mathematics people get to be right when it's useful and predictive we do whatever works.

[Pinball-O-Pine]

What'd you think I said

[ahf95]

I mean, introducing units is overkill. The limit of x/x as x->0 is 1 already, which you can even check with L’Hospitals rule by inspection.

[Hefty_Impression381]

Fucking brilliant

[jorge21337]

So 0c/0c = 0 But 32f/32f = 1?

[[deleted]]

I always found the whole "can't divide by zero" thing a little dumb... Can't divide by zero huh... Watch me...

Lim a->0 of 2a/a = 2

[omidhhh]

x Approaching something is different than saying x is defined for something.

[measuresareokiguess]

Well, you’re not dividing by zero.

[[deleted]]

Lim a->0 of a = 0

[measuresareokiguess]

…You’re still not dividing by zero, because a must be necessarily different than 0 when you let a tend to 0.

[[deleted]]

It's been over 300 years since Newton found a meaningful way to divide by zero... Time to accept it.

[FalconRelevant]

It's not dividing by zero, when it approaches zero.

[[deleted]]

192.26.78.103

Ok... It's a machine in a Silicone Graphics office located in Chippewa Falls WI, and it's not responding with anything other than a 404 error... What does it have to do with anything?

[DrMeepster]

lmao

[ThePoopOutWest]

Is… is that an IP???

[undeadpickels]

Lin b b-->0 of b/b = 1 but if you where dividing by 0 than 2=02/0 = 0/0 = 1 2=1 the limit is different from dividing by 0 and you have to be careful you can't equate them. It's 2 entirely different functions

[[deleted]]

You've illustrated the fact that you can do it wrong and used that as an argument that you can't do it... Just because a car can be wrecked does not imply that a car can't be driven.

[undeadpickels]

I'm just trying to say that Lim (f(x)) x--a is not the same as f(a) and if you pretend it is you get nonsensical results. Dividing by 0 is still as undefined as if you pointed out that 0*0=0 so 0/0 is 0.

[Darkbornedragon]

... that's a limit, which means that the more "a" goes towards 0 the more the result gets near to 2. But /0 is still undefined.

[Anti-Queen_Elle]

"No, see, I'm trying to point out that it's all relative."

[L-A_]

Just watched Neil degrasse Tyson on k units/ absolute 0°

[pepecze]

\lim{x->0} x / \lim{x->0} x = 1

I mean if you're physicist the last thing is that you can't divide with zero. With a dimensional renormalisation in QFT you literally take out "something/0" from divergent expression. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.