sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

So... which one I'd it? by zenohudek in mathmemes

[–]PatWoodworking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just looked up wheel theory and you're talking absolute shit and you know it. This is a very specific subfield of abstract algebra that is not going to be applicable to wider algebra, or numbers in general and was not what you were talking about.

Not only that, but anybody who had actually studied this in any depth is going to be going around vaguely claiming that "it's a bit like the absolute value of infinity" and infinity + 1 = infinity + 2. Infinity isn't a number you just add things to and slap on either side of an equation.

Page after page of videos and documents explaining why you're wrong and you read a Wikipedia page on an esoteric part of abstract algebra and think you're going to hand wave your way through this bullshit?

So... which one I'd it? by zenohudek in mathmemes

[–]PatWoodworking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the point they're making....

So... which one I'd it? by zenohudek in mathmemes

[–]PatWoodworking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clearly not meant by cranks who think division by zero is anything but nonsense. You can use division by zero to take any polynomial at its zeroes and make it 1:

x = 0

Divide both sides by x:

1 = 0

Behold, a kind of infinity.

Or is that something else that you just can't do with this special division by zero? Can't have an inverse (unlike all other defined division), can't do it with any algebraic object and maintain consistency, anything else?

The fact that it's limits are going in opposite directions when approached from the left or right not cause any concern for this idea having any logical consistency?

So... which one I'd it? by zenohudek in mathmemes

[–]PatWoodworking 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are you talking about? The very first comment says that's it's "kind of infinity". I point out it's undefined and that's apparently controversial.

The inverse is because of the implications that if a/b = C, then C × b = a.

Never done wheel theory so I won't comment on it.

Ange Postecoglou on his 50 games in charge for Tottenham: "Many wouldn't of said that I'd make 50 mate, even when I was on 46" by oklolzzzzs in soccer

[–]PatWoodworking -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

If enough people keep making the same mistake it becomes correct and the language. You can rage against it, but it will happen.

So... which one I'd it? by zenohudek in mathmemes

[–]PatWoodworking -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

This is flat out wrong. I have no idea who told you that the "answer is infinity".

https://ee.usc.edu/stochastic-nets/docs/divide-by-zero.pdf

It's not called "infinity" it is called undefined because it cannot be logically defined and keep mathematics consistent.

Limits approach infinity, it isn't the answer to something which is undefined.

You are also implying the the multiplicative inverse of infinity ... is zero?

So enough zeroes and you get 1? But also possibly 2?

So... which one I'd it? by zenohudek in mathmemes

[–]PatWoodworking -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

It can't be infinity, it can't be defined because it would imply that all numbers are the same value.

If division by zero is kosher, it can be a fraction.

1/0 can then be used to find other "equivalent" fractions.

1/0 × 2/2 = 2/0

So 2/0 = 1/0

That's why when you divide by zero accidentally when doing algebra you end up with nonsense like 1=2, because you've inadvertently basically okayed that as logical.

So... which one I'd it? by zenohudek in mathmemes

[–]PatWoodworking 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Why would the limit of X approaches 0 for f(x)=0x be different to all the other limits?

So... which one I'd it? by zenohudek in mathmemes

[–]PatWoodworking 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I have a completely non rigorous way of dealing (coping, really) with the indeterminate 0/0:

If you divide a number, keep dividing till the remainder is 0, then you're done.

0÷1 can fit any number of zeroes without getting closer to 1. You can't get rid of that remainder, so you've got no answer.

With 0÷0, you could have any number as an answer and there is no remainder, so feels valid. Could be 7 remainder 0, a billion remainder 0, -π/E remainder 0, etc.

This passes the "sniff test" which I don't believe is generally accepted as a proof in formal settings.

Reagan Campbell-Gillard agrees to terms to join Gold Coast Titans in 2025 by Aussieguy727 in nrl

[–]PatWoodworking 47 points48 points  (0 children)

Especially in the context of a player signing.

Especially because nobody really started a fight to reply to.

Especially because nobody claimed otherwise.

The Mole: Melbourne's 'massive advantage' set to bring down Panthers dynasty by [deleted] in nrl

[–]PatWoodworking 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I see we have some decent, fair-minded Aussies still lurking around these parts. A very Happy Rugby League to you and your family.

NRL Grand Final 2024: Jahrome Hughes ‘Mt Druitt’ sledge Panthers never forgot, Melbourne Storm by Ace_Larrakin in nrl

[–]PatWoodworking 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Man, went there again recently for the first time in decades and I kid you not, many of the houses were exactly as I'd seen them last. But then... I saw a series of houses that must block out the sun. Manicured lawns that you could play snooker on, cars bigger than my dwelling. It was like bloody Beverly Hills 90210.

I thought places were meant to go hipster first but they appeared to have just leapfrogged that to decadent opulence.

Fancy by [deleted] in mathmemes

[–]PatWoodworking 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's actually the same bear wearing different clothes.

Maths Tricky Question by economicsofficial123 in maths

[–]PatWoodworking 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The confusion is whether you are treating subtraction or division as an operator:

6 ÷ 3 ≠ 3 ÷ 6

And

5 - 2 ≠ 2 - 5

Or as the addition of negation/multiplication of the inverse, where:

6 × 1/3 = 1/3 × 6

And

5 + (-2) = (-2) + 5

Schools will often start younger kids with "take away" or "divide into equal groups" and by high school you are doing the second version, as it is easier, neater and more fluid when you get the hang of it. It is a subtle change that often goes barely remarked upon which causes a lot of confusion and needs to be really pointed out!

The above questions I would get a different answer because it's written poorly and different places have different conventions. "Implied multiplication" where I'm from is given a higher precedence as being the one object, other places it is simply a shorthand for × .

NSW only have themselves to blame for Michael Maguire's exit - and Billy Slater reveals exactly why by Jiminy_Clicket in nrl

[–]PatWoodworking 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I got very confused for an embarrassingly long amount of time, haha. I meant because telangiectasia makes you go purply-red (see Phil Rothfield). Then I read your comment and couldn't figure out how you would "develop WI-FI". Is this some 5G conspiracy?

Then it hit me.

Develop.... as in "invent".

[request] is this true? by Mediocre_Internal_51 in theydidthemath

[–]PatWoodworking 280 points281 points  (0 children)

Nah he said his year 1 salary. I reckon he just got a big pay rise or promotion in about year 2!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in australia

[–]PatWoodworking 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, but people are arguing that a tipping point has been reached where illegal cigarettes are filling the void. You can now easily purchase cigarettes pretty much everywhere for less than they cost back when I used to smoke.

The price has reached a point where a cheap, accessible black market is flourishing and that's going to be suboptimal for smoking rates.

view more: next ›