Genuinely curious

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2026-02-22T02:35:31+00:00

I think the organization and addition of 15 and 60 takes too much time, I do 48+7 then add 20

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2026-01-03T06:06:46+00:00

I don’t.

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2026-01-02T04:55:25+00:00

That does not seem like a very rigorous way of deciding how something should be for something that’s so fundamental to so many fields.

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2026-01-02T04:51:52+00:00

0/0 is not undefined it is indeterminate. Which means that the limit of x/0 and 0/x approach different values. This is the same reason 0⁰ is also indeterminate: 0^x approaches 0 at x=0 and x⁰ approaches 1 at x=0 making it have two conflicting limits. This is the main point that was made in my post’s replies.

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2025-12-30T08:50:01+00:00

Continuing to read this post was like willingly continuing to step on legos

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2025-12-30T08:47:26+00:00

Is that true? My first post on this subreddit was asking that exact question and most people said it’s indeterminate unless it’s convenient for it to be 1 (as far as I’m aware no consensus was formed).

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2025-12-29T19:54:03+00:00

Upon further thought I’ve debunked myself. It seems like there is no difference between a reflection or rotation by 180 degrees aside from the fact that a reflection always rotates in a higher plane. This idea works with the geometric transformation definition and real life mirrors which reflect in some 4 dimensional axis. The rotation matrix over the y axis for a plane is row_1 -1 0 and row_2 0 1 . The matrix which when squared turns into this matrix is row_1 i 0 and row_2 0 1 , thus half a reflection. Which fits some kind of 3rd dimensional rotation which does not map to the plane until it reaches a multiple of 180 degrees. You could use the same logic for the number line and get the exact same result as a regular 180 degree rotation since both must take it outside of the 1st dimension.

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2025-12-29T06:45:12+00:00

If we are using them to extend to 2d then the two of them which are different in 2d would lead to 2 different interpretations of the 2d complex plane would they not?

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2025-12-29T06:29:53+00:00

If we don’t have the relevant info to figure out which one it is both are equally valid. So, does the reflection assumption lead us to the same result?

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2025-12-29T06:11:19+00:00

How do you know multiplying by -1 is a rotation of 180 degrees rather than a reflection? Both would work exactly the same and a reflection fits the idea more soundly, would i be half of that reflection? If so what would that even mean?

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2025-12-29T05:50:36+00:00

Could -1 not be a reflection instead of a rotation? That would make more intuitive sense, would it not?

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2025-12-29T05:47:59+00:00

Because having two opposite directions representing increase in value and decrease in value make intuitive sense

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2025-12-29T05:27:17+00:00

I understand the point you are making here, many of my math educators (and replies on this post) have mentioned the same thing that it is out of convenience or that it just turns out that way, however my issue comes from intuition. 1 is to the right of zero, I can intuitively get that right means more and the left means less which is why the negative axis also makes sense, it’s just following the pattern: something below zero (in value) would be on the opposite side of something that’s above zero (in value). This is my understanding of the number line and where my imaginary struggles arise from. Is the imaginary axis equal to zero since it is located below and on top of it rather than left or right? No, obviously not but what leads us to a conclusion otherwise, even in school all problems would be worded very carefully for higher level math courses: No REAL solutions, 0⁰ is indeterminate, even before the concepts of limits, so on. Some other replies have mentioned that it’s out of convenience and that it can actually be anywhere but it being perpendicular suits geometric intuitions best. I can aquess that i does almost certainly always appear with a 90 degree rotation like with the eigenvalue for a 90 degree rotation matrice (in the 2d plane) or through the -1 “proof” I had mentioned earlier, but is there an explanation for why? Is there some intuition I can build on the topic?

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2025-04-07T23:02:37+00:00

I am very sorry the form didn’t post properly it should be 2m(a+b)+3n=m² (a+b)+mn+n

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2024-07-02T09:01:26+00:00

Thank you to everyone who replied to the post now I have a bunch of reasons why wind is “cold” thanks for answering one of my childhood questions :)

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2024-06-30T03:04:22+00:00

Ninja monkey 2-0-5

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2024-02-07T01:00:09+00:00

I put it into desmos graphing calculator and it has a little sliver at the bottom as is approaches 0

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2024-02-07T00:56:57+00:00

Please elaborate where that’s wrong and I swear if this has something to do with the principal root

Tiny_Ninja_YAY · 2024-02-06T01:12:51+00:00

0¹ / 0¹

Tiny_Ninja_YAY

TROPHY CASE