Another proof that dividing by $0$ does not exist — is it right?












37












$begingroup$


Ok I am in grade 9 and I am maybe too young for this.



But I thought about this, why dividing by $0$ is impossible.



Dividing by $0$ is possible would mean $1/0$ is possible, which would mean $0$ has a multiplicative inverse.



So if we multiply a number by $0$ then by $1/0$ we get the same number.



But that's impossible because all numbers multiplied by $0$ give $0$ therefore we can’t have an inverse for $0$, as that gives us the initial number and thus division by $0$ is impossible



Is this right?






proof-verification soft-question







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Apr 1 at 19:57






  • 19




    $begingroup$
    Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
    $endgroup$
    – ErotemeObelus
    Apr 1 at 23:44








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    2 days ago
















37












$begingroup$


Ok I am in grade 9 and I am maybe too young for this.



But I thought about this, why dividing by $0$ is impossible.



Dividing by $0$ is possible would mean $1/0$ is possible, which would mean $0$ has a multiplicative inverse.



So if we multiply a number by $0$ then by $1/0$ we get the same number.



But that's impossible because all numbers multiplied by $0$ give $0$ therefore we can’t have an inverse for $0$, as that gives us the initial number and thus division by $0$ is impossible



Is this right?






proof-verification soft-question







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Apr 1 at 19:57






  • 19




    $begingroup$
    Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
    $endgroup$
    – ErotemeObelus
    Apr 1 at 23:44








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    2 days ago














37












37








37


3



$begingroup$


Ok I am in grade 9 and I am maybe too young for this.



But I thought about this, why dividing by $0$ is impossible.



Dividing by $0$ is possible would mean $1/0$ is possible, which would mean $0$ has a multiplicative inverse.



So if we multiply a number by $0$ then by $1/0$ we get the same number.



But that's impossible because all numbers multiplied by $0$ give $0$ therefore we can’t have an inverse for $0$, as that gives us the initial number and thus division by $0$ is impossible



Is this right?






proof-verification soft-question







share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Ok I am in grade 9 and I am maybe too young for this.



But I thought about this, why dividing by $0$ is impossible.



Dividing by $0$ is possible would mean $1/0$ is possible, which would mean $0$ has a multiplicative inverse.



So if we multiply a number by $0$ then by $1/0$ we get the same number.



But that's impossible because all numbers multiplied by $0$ give $0$ therefore we can’t have an inverse for $0$, as that gives us the initial number and thus division by $0$ is impossible



Is this right?






proof-verification soft-question




proof-verification soft-question






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday









Jack

27.7k1782204




27.7k1782204






New contributor




Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Apr 1 at 19:54









Selim Jean ElliehSelim Jean Ellieh

19618




19618




New contributor




Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • $begingroup$
    Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Apr 1 at 19:57






  • 19




    $begingroup$
    Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
    $endgroup$
    – ErotemeObelus
    Apr 1 at 23:44








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    2 days ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Apr 1 at 19:57






  • 19




    $begingroup$
    Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
    $endgroup$
    – ErotemeObelus
    Apr 1 at 23:44








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    2 days ago
















$begingroup$
Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 19:57




$begingroup$
Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
Apr 1 at 19:57




19




19




$begingroup$
Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
$endgroup$
– ErotemeObelus
Apr 1 at 23:44






$begingroup$
Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
$endgroup$
– ErotemeObelus
Apr 1 at 23:44






1




1




$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
$endgroup$
– Maria Mazur
2 days ago




$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
$endgroup$
– Maria Mazur
2 days ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















45












$begingroup$

That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):




  • What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)

  • What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$)

  • What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 7




    $begingroup$
    +1, but usually "what $0$ means" is $a+0=a$, and one gets $0a=0$ via distributivity (which very desirable).
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    2 days ago



















10












$begingroup$

Yes . . . and no.



You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.



See Lemma 2 of the 1997 article "Wheels," by A. Setzer for tables describing addition, multiplication, and their inverses in what is called $R_bot^infty$, the wheel given by adjoining special symbols and rules to an arbitrary integral domain $R$ in order to allow division by zero, even $frac{0}{0}=:bot$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 22




    $begingroup$
    You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    Apr 1 at 20:02






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Apr 1 at 20:03






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Apr 1 at 20:04






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Apr 1 at 20:06






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    @Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – YiFan
    Apr 1 at 22:34



















2












$begingroup$

That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.



Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.



A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,

- $a+b=b+a$,

- $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,

- $e_++a=a$,

- there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,

- $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,

- $e_timestimes a=a$,

- there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.



Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.



Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 7




    $begingroup$
    While I think the mathematical theory behind fields is definitely a good point to bring up, I'd like to suggest that this answer be simplified considerably (after all, OP is in 9th grade, and this is generally considered a good ways above the level of mathematics taught in most High Schools).
    $endgroup$
    – Chef Cyanide
    2 days ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    In particular, jargon such as "such that", "there exists", and "for all" are probably unfamiliar to a 9th grader. Additionally, all non arithmetic symbols (like "∈") are probably off the table. Finally, 9th graders probably won't be familiar with conventions like "$e_*$" meaning the identity element with respect to $*$.
    $endgroup$
    – Vaelus
    2 days ago








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Vaelus: That would be a relevant consideration if we were talking to a randomly picked 9th-grader. However, here we're dealing with a 9th-grader who is inquisitive and mathematically minded enough to come up with their own proofs just out of curiosity. I don't think a bit of mathematics jargon will scare them away; they'll learn it sooner or later anyway. At university, 13th-graders are expected to absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples; for this OP getting a four-year head start on that will not harm.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm I don’t think that just throwing around jargon will help, even for an inquisitive 9th grader. At the very least, such jargon should be carefully introduced and motivated. I too was once an inquisitive 9th grader, but even then I might have been intimidated by an excessive amount of unfamiliar jargon which was not defined and simply assumed as known.
    $endgroup$
    – Sir Jective
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm In particular, one of the most frustrating experiences for me in college was being expected to “absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples”; it felt like it sapped away any of the intuition or motivation that should have been there. Why were we building up things this way, and not some other? It’s like this sort of inquisitiveness was being actively stifled.
    $endgroup$
    – Sir Jective
    2 days ago



















0












$begingroup$

You are quite right.



There is a simpler way, though (which spares the concept of multiplicative inverse):



By definition, $q$ is the quotient of the division of $d$ by $0$ if the following equation is satisfied:



$$0cdot q=d.$$



But we know that $0cdot q=0$, so the equation has no solution (unless $d=0$).






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });






    Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3171071%2fanother-proof-that-dividing-by-0-does-not-exist-is-it-right%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    45












    $begingroup$

    That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):




    • What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)

    • What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$)

    • What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 7




      $begingroup$
      +1, but usually "what $0$ means" is $a+0=a$, and one gets $0a=0$ via distributivity (which very desirable).
      $endgroup$
      – Martin Argerami
      2 days ago
















    45












    $begingroup$

    That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):




    • What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)

    • What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$)

    • What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 7




      $begingroup$
      +1, but usually "what $0$ means" is $a+0=a$, and one gets $0a=0$ via distributivity (which very desirable).
      $endgroup$
      – Martin Argerami
      2 days ago














    45












    45








    45





    $begingroup$

    That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):




    • What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)

    • What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$)

    • What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):




    • What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)

    • What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$)

    • What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Apr 1 at 20:00









    ArthurArthur

    122k7122210




    122k7122210








    • 7




      $begingroup$
      +1, but usually "what $0$ means" is $a+0=a$, and one gets $0a=0$ via distributivity (which very desirable).
      $endgroup$
      – Martin Argerami
      2 days ago














    • 7




      $begingroup$
      +1, but usually "what $0$ means" is $a+0=a$, and one gets $0a=0$ via distributivity (which very desirable).
      $endgroup$
      – Martin Argerami
      2 days ago








    7




    7




    $begingroup$
    +1, but usually "what $0$ means" is $a+0=a$, and one gets $0a=0$ via distributivity (which very desirable).
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    +1, but usually "what $0$ means" is $a+0=a$, and one gets $0a=0$ via distributivity (which very desirable).
    $endgroup$
    – Martin Argerami
    2 days ago











    10












    $begingroup$

    Yes . . . and no.



    You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.



    See Lemma 2 of the 1997 article "Wheels," by A. Setzer for tables describing addition, multiplication, and their inverses in what is called $R_bot^infty$, the wheel given by adjoining special symbols and rules to an arbitrary integral domain $R$ in order to allow division by zero, even $frac{0}{0}=:bot$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 22




      $begingroup$
      You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
      $endgroup$
      – Arthur
      Apr 1 at 20:02






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      Apr 1 at 20:03






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      Apr 1 at 20:04






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      Apr 1 at 20:06






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      @Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      Apr 1 at 22:34
















    10












    $begingroup$

    Yes . . . and no.



    You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.



    See Lemma 2 of the 1997 article "Wheels," by A. Setzer for tables describing addition, multiplication, and their inverses in what is called $R_bot^infty$, the wheel given by adjoining special symbols and rules to an arbitrary integral domain $R$ in order to allow division by zero, even $frac{0}{0}=:bot$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 22




      $begingroup$
      You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
      $endgroup$
      – Arthur
      Apr 1 at 20:02






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      Apr 1 at 20:03






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      Apr 1 at 20:04






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      Apr 1 at 20:06






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      @Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      Apr 1 at 22:34














    10












    10








    10





    $begingroup$

    Yes . . . and no.



    You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.



    See Lemma 2 of the 1997 article "Wheels," by A. Setzer for tables describing addition, multiplication, and their inverses in what is called $R_bot^infty$, the wheel given by adjoining special symbols and rules to an arbitrary integral domain $R$ in order to allow division by zero, even $frac{0}{0}=:bot$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Yes . . . and no.



    You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.



    See Lemma 2 of the 1997 article "Wheels," by A. Setzer for tables describing addition, multiplication, and their inverses in what is called $R_bot^infty$, the wheel given by adjoining special symbols and rules to an arbitrary integral domain $R$ in order to allow division by zero, even $frac{0}{0}=:bot$.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago

























    answered Apr 1 at 19:59









    ShaunShaun

    10.3k113686




    10.3k113686








    • 22




      $begingroup$
      You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
      $endgroup$
      – Arthur
      Apr 1 at 20:02






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      Apr 1 at 20:03






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      Apr 1 at 20:04






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      Apr 1 at 20:06






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      @Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      Apr 1 at 22:34














    • 22




      $begingroup$
      You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
      $endgroup$
      – Arthur
      Apr 1 at 20:02






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      Apr 1 at 20:03






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      Apr 1 at 20:04






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      Apr 1 at 20:06






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      @Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      Apr 1 at 22:34








    22




    22




    $begingroup$
    You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    Apr 1 at 20:02




    $begingroup$
    You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
    $endgroup$
    – Arthur
    Apr 1 at 20:02




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Apr 1 at 20:03




    $begingroup$
    That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Apr 1 at 20:03




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Apr 1 at 20:04




    $begingroup$
    What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Apr 1 at 20:04




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Apr 1 at 20:06




    $begingroup$
    Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Apr 1 at 20:06




    10




    10




    $begingroup$
    @Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – YiFan
    Apr 1 at 22:34




    $begingroup$
    @Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
    $endgroup$
    – YiFan
    Apr 1 at 22:34











    2












    $begingroup$

    That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.



    Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.



    A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,

    - $a+b=b+a$,

    - $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,

    - $e_++a=a$,

    - there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,

    - $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,

    - $e_timestimes a=a$,

    - there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.



    Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.



    Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 7




      $begingroup$
      While I think the mathematical theory behind fields is definitely a good point to bring up, I'd like to suggest that this answer be simplified considerably (after all, OP is in 9th grade, and this is generally considered a good ways above the level of mathematics taught in most High Schools).
      $endgroup$
      – Chef Cyanide
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      In particular, jargon such as "such that", "there exists", and "for all" are probably unfamiliar to a 9th grader. Additionally, all non arithmetic symbols (like "∈") are probably off the table. Finally, 9th graders probably won't be familiar with conventions like "$e_*$" meaning the identity element with respect to $*$.
      $endgroup$
      – Vaelus
      2 days ago








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Vaelus: That would be a relevant consideration if we were talking to a randomly picked 9th-grader. However, here we're dealing with a 9th-grader who is inquisitive and mathematically minded enough to come up with their own proofs just out of curiosity. I don't think a bit of mathematics jargon will scare them away; they'll learn it sooner or later anyway. At university, 13th-graders are expected to absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples; for this OP getting a four-year head start on that will not harm.
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm I don’t think that just throwing around jargon will help, even for an inquisitive 9th grader. At the very least, such jargon should be carefully introduced and motivated. I too was once an inquisitive 9th grader, but even then I might have been intimidated by an excessive amount of unfamiliar jargon which was not defined and simply assumed as known.
      $endgroup$
      – Sir Jective
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm In particular, one of the most frustrating experiences for me in college was being expected to “absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples”; it felt like it sapped away any of the intuition or motivation that should have been there. Why were we building up things this way, and not some other? It’s like this sort of inquisitiveness was being actively stifled.
      $endgroup$
      – Sir Jective
      2 days ago
















    2












    $begingroup$

    That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.



    Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.



    A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,

    - $a+b=b+a$,

    - $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,

    - $e_++a=a$,

    - there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,

    - $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,

    - $e_timestimes a=a$,

    - there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.



    Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.



    Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 7




      $begingroup$
      While I think the mathematical theory behind fields is definitely a good point to bring up, I'd like to suggest that this answer be simplified considerably (after all, OP is in 9th grade, and this is generally considered a good ways above the level of mathematics taught in most High Schools).
      $endgroup$
      – Chef Cyanide
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      In particular, jargon such as "such that", "there exists", and "for all" are probably unfamiliar to a 9th grader. Additionally, all non arithmetic symbols (like "∈") are probably off the table. Finally, 9th graders probably won't be familiar with conventions like "$e_*$" meaning the identity element with respect to $*$.
      $endgroup$
      – Vaelus
      2 days ago








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Vaelus: That would be a relevant consideration if we were talking to a randomly picked 9th-grader. However, here we're dealing with a 9th-grader who is inquisitive and mathematically minded enough to come up with their own proofs just out of curiosity. I don't think a bit of mathematics jargon will scare them away; they'll learn it sooner or later anyway. At university, 13th-graders are expected to absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples; for this OP getting a four-year head start on that will not harm.
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm I don’t think that just throwing around jargon will help, even for an inquisitive 9th grader. At the very least, such jargon should be carefully introduced and motivated. I too was once an inquisitive 9th grader, but even then I might have been intimidated by an excessive amount of unfamiliar jargon which was not defined and simply assumed as known.
      $endgroup$
      – Sir Jective
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm In particular, one of the most frustrating experiences for me in college was being expected to “absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples”; it felt like it sapped away any of the intuition or motivation that should have been there. Why were we building up things this way, and not some other? It’s like this sort of inquisitiveness was being actively stifled.
      $endgroup$
      – Sir Jective
      2 days ago














    2












    2








    2





    $begingroup$

    That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.



    Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.



    A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,

    - $a+b=b+a$,

    - $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,

    - $e_++a=a$,

    - there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,

    - $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,

    - $e_timestimes a=a$,

    - there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.



    Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.



    Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.



    Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.



    A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,

    - $a+b=b+a$,

    - $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,

    - $e_++a=a$,

    - there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,

    - $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,

    - $e_timestimes a=a$,

    - there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.



    Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.



    Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 2 days ago









    TreborTrebor

    99815




    99815








    • 7




      $begingroup$
      While I think the mathematical theory behind fields is definitely a good point to bring up, I'd like to suggest that this answer be simplified considerably (after all, OP is in 9th grade, and this is generally considered a good ways above the level of mathematics taught in most High Schools).
      $endgroup$
      – Chef Cyanide
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      In particular, jargon such as "such that", "there exists", and "for all" are probably unfamiliar to a 9th grader. Additionally, all non arithmetic symbols (like "∈") are probably off the table. Finally, 9th graders probably won't be familiar with conventions like "$e_*$" meaning the identity element with respect to $*$.
      $endgroup$
      – Vaelus
      2 days ago








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Vaelus: That would be a relevant consideration if we were talking to a randomly picked 9th-grader. However, here we're dealing with a 9th-grader who is inquisitive and mathematically minded enough to come up with their own proofs just out of curiosity. I don't think a bit of mathematics jargon will scare them away; they'll learn it sooner or later anyway. At university, 13th-graders are expected to absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples; for this OP getting a four-year head start on that will not harm.
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm I don’t think that just throwing around jargon will help, even for an inquisitive 9th grader. At the very least, such jargon should be carefully introduced and motivated. I too was once an inquisitive 9th grader, but even then I might have been intimidated by an excessive amount of unfamiliar jargon which was not defined and simply assumed as known.
      $endgroup$
      – Sir Jective
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm In particular, one of the most frustrating experiences for me in college was being expected to “absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples”; it felt like it sapped away any of the intuition or motivation that should have been there. Why were we building up things this way, and not some other? It’s like this sort of inquisitiveness was being actively stifled.
      $endgroup$
      – Sir Jective
      2 days ago














    • 7




      $begingroup$
      While I think the mathematical theory behind fields is definitely a good point to bring up, I'd like to suggest that this answer be simplified considerably (after all, OP is in 9th grade, and this is generally considered a good ways above the level of mathematics taught in most High Schools).
      $endgroup$
      – Chef Cyanide
      2 days ago






    • 4




      $begingroup$
      In particular, jargon such as "such that", "there exists", and "for all" are probably unfamiliar to a 9th grader. Additionally, all non arithmetic symbols (like "∈") are probably off the table. Finally, 9th graders probably won't be familiar with conventions like "$e_*$" meaning the identity element with respect to $*$.
      $endgroup$
      – Vaelus
      2 days ago








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Vaelus: That would be a relevant consideration if we were talking to a randomly picked 9th-grader. However, here we're dealing with a 9th-grader who is inquisitive and mathematically minded enough to come up with their own proofs just out of curiosity. I don't think a bit of mathematics jargon will scare them away; they'll learn it sooner or later anyway. At university, 13th-graders are expected to absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples; for this OP getting a four-year head start on that will not harm.
      $endgroup$
      – Henning Makholm
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm I don’t think that just throwing around jargon will help, even for an inquisitive 9th grader. At the very least, such jargon should be carefully introduced and motivated. I too was once an inquisitive 9th grader, but even then I might have been intimidated by an excessive amount of unfamiliar jargon which was not defined and simply assumed as known.
      $endgroup$
      – Sir Jective
      2 days ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @HenningMakholm In particular, one of the most frustrating experiences for me in college was being expected to “absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples”; it felt like it sapped away any of the intuition or motivation that should have been there. Why were we building up things this way, and not some other? It’s like this sort of inquisitiveness was being actively stifled.
      $endgroup$
      – Sir Jective
      2 days ago








    7




    7




    $begingroup$
    While I think the mathematical theory behind fields is definitely a good point to bring up, I'd like to suggest that this answer be simplified considerably (after all, OP is in 9th grade, and this is generally considered a good ways above the level of mathematics taught in most High Schools).
    $endgroup$
    – Chef Cyanide
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    While I think the mathematical theory behind fields is definitely a good point to bring up, I'd like to suggest that this answer be simplified considerably (after all, OP is in 9th grade, and this is generally considered a good ways above the level of mathematics taught in most High Schools).
    $endgroup$
    – Chef Cyanide
    2 days ago




    4




    4




    $begingroup$
    In particular, jargon such as "such that", "there exists", and "for all" are probably unfamiliar to a 9th grader. Additionally, all non arithmetic symbols (like "∈") are probably off the table. Finally, 9th graders probably won't be familiar with conventions like "$e_*$" meaning the identity element with respect to $*$.
    $endgroup$
    – Vaelus
    2 days ago






    $begingroup$
    In particular, jargon such as "such that", "there exists", and "for all" are probably unfamiliar to a 9th grader. Additionally, all non arithmetic symbols (like "∈") are probably off the table. Finally, 9th graders probably won't be familiar with conventions like "$e_*$" meaning the identity element with respect to $*$.
    $endgroup$
    – Vaelus
    2 days ago






    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @Vaelus: That would be a relevant consideration if we were talking to a randomly picked 9th-grader. However, here we're dealing with a 9th-grader who is inquisitive and mathematically minded enough to come up with their own proofs just out of curiosity. I don't think a bit of mathematics jargon will scare them away; they'll learn it sooner or later anyway. At university, 13th-graders are expected to absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples; for this OP getting a four-year head start on that will not harm.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @Vaelus: That would be a relevant consideration if we were talking to a randomly picked 9th-grader. However, here we're dealing with a 9th-grader who is inquisitive and mathematically minded enough to come up with their own proofs just out of curiosity. I don't think a bit of mathematics jargon will scare them away; they'll learn it sooner or later anyway. At university, 13th-graders are expected to absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples; for this OP getting a four-year head start on that will not harm.
    $endgroup$
    – Henning Makholm
    2 days ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm I don’t think that just throwing around jargon will help, even for an inquisitive 9th grader. At the very least, such jargon should be carefully introduced and motivated. I too was once an inquisitive 9th grader, but even then I might have been intimidated by an excessive amount of unfamiliar jargon which was not defined and simply assumed as known.
    $endgroup$
    – Sir Jective
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm I don’t think that just throwing around jargon will help, even for an inquisitive 9th grader. At the very least, such jargon should be carefully introduced and motivated. I too was once an inquisitive 9th grader, but even then I might have been intimidated by an excessive amount of unfamiliar jargon which was not defined and simply assumed as known.
    $endgroup$
    – Sir Jective
    2 days ago




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm In particular, one of the most frustrating experiences for me in college was being expected to “absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples”; it felt like it sapped away any of the intuition or motivation that should have been there. Why were we building up things this way, and not some other? It’s like this sort of inquisitiveness was being actively stifled.
    $endgroup$
    – Sir Jective
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    @HenningMakholm In particular, one of the most frustrating experiences for me in college was being expected to “absorb the lingo mostly by imitation and examples”; it felt like it sapped away any of the intuition or motivation that should have been there. Why were we building up things this way, and not some other? It’s like this sort of inquisitiveness was being actively stifled.
    $endgroup$
    – Sir Jective
    2 days ago











    0












    $begingroup$

    You are quite right.



    There is a simpler way, though (which spares the concept of multiplicative inverse):



    By definition, $q$ is the quotient of the division of $d$ by $0$ if the following equation is satisfied:



    $$0cdot q=d.$$



    But we know that $0cdot q=0$, so the equation has no solution (unless $d=0$).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      You are quite right.



      There is a simpler way, though (which spares the concept of multiplicative inverse):



      By definition, $q$ is the quotient of the division of $d$ by $0$ if the following equation is satisfied:



      $$0cdot q=d.$$



      But we know that $0cdot q=0$, so the equation has no solution (unless $d=0$).






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        You are quite right.



        There is a simpler way, though (which spares the concept of multiplicative inverse):



        By definition, $q$ is the quotient of the division of $d$ by $0$ if the following equation is satisfied:



        $$0cdot q=d.$$



        But we know that $0cdot q=0$, so the equation has no solution (unless $d=0$).






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        You are quite right.



        There is a simpler way, though (which spares the concept of multiplicative inverse):



        By definition, $q$ is the quotient of the division of $d$ by $0$ if the following equation is satisfied:



        $$0cdot q=d.$$



        But we know that $0cdot q=0$, so the equation has no solution (unless $d=0$).







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 4 hours ago









        Yves DaoustYves Daoust

        132k676229




        132k676229






















            Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3171071%2fanother-proof-that-dividing-by-0-does-not-exist-is-it-right%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            How did Captain America manage to do this?

            Image
            2 How does Captain America lift Thor's hammer? In Avengers: Age of Ultron , he is not worthy but how he is worthy in this film. plot-explanation marvel-cinematic-universe avengers-age-of-ultron avengers-endgame share | improve this question edited 19 mins ago A J ♦ 42.7k 16 229 246 asked 39 mins ago Andi AR Andi AR 325 1 4 14
            Read more

            迪纳利

            Image
            迪纳利峰 位于迪纳利国家公园和保留区的迪纳利峰（旧名麦金利峰） 最高点 海拔 20,237英尺（6,168米）   NGVD 29 . [1] [2] 相對高度 20,073英尺（6,118米） 列表 各洲最高峰列表 特独立山峰 各国最高点列表 美国最高点  排名第一 [3] 坐标 63°04′10″N 151°00′27″W  /  63.06944°N 151.00750°W  / 63.06944; -151.00750  ( Mount McKinley ) 坐标： 63°04′10″N 151°00′27″W  /  63.06944°N 151.00750°W  / 63.06944; -151.00750  ( Mount McKinley )   地理 位置   美國阿拉斯加州迪纳利自治市镇 迪纳利国家公园和保留区 山脈 阿拉斯加山脉 攀山 首次登頂 （ 英语 ： First ascent ） 1913年6月7日 哈德逊·史塔克 哈里·卡斯坦斯 沃尔特·哈珀 罗伯特·塔特姆 最簡路線 西坡路线（攀登冰川/雪） 迪纳利 （北阿萨巴斯卡语支、 英语： Denali ， / d ᵻ ˈ n ɑː l i / ，直译“高山”），1917年至2015年官方名称为 麦金利山 （另译作 麦金利峰 ， 英语： Mount McKinley ），位于阿拉斯加州东南部、阿拉斯加山脉中段，海拔6194米，是北美洲最高峰，也是美国的最高峰。它的俄语名称是 Большая Гора ， 罗马化：Bolshaya Gora ，意思是“大山”。 迪纳利山地区拥有变幻莫测的高山风、典型的北极植被以及野生动植物。这里大部分地区终年积雪，山间经常浓雾不断，雾气在皑皑白雪中缭绕弥漫时，几百米之外的景物便不可见。夏季，迪纳利山的青青山坡上鲜花盛开，紫色的杜鹃和精巧的铃状石南花随处可见。迪纳利山还是世界登山爱好者的汇集之地。每年5月到7月有数百人登山，只有一半不到的人能登顶成功。一次登山约花3个星期。 2015年8月31日，美國政府宣佈將山名由“麦金利山”改回原名“迪纳利山”。美國內政部發表聲
            Read more

            南乌拉尔铁路局

            Image
            南乌拉尔铁路局 Южно-Уральская железная дорога 成立 1934年1月4日 国家   蘇聯（1934年—1991年）   俄羅斯（1991年—） 总部 车里雅宾斯克 隶属 俄罗斯铁路股份公司 路局代码 80 铁路里程 4,934.9公里 奖项 网址 http://yuzd.rzd.ru/ 查 论 编 南乌拉尔铁路局 （俄语： Южно-Уральская железная дорога ， 羅馬化： Yuzhno-Uralskaya zheleznaya doroga ，简称 ЮУЖД ）是俄罗斯铁路股份公司属下的铁路管理局之一，总部位于车里雅宾斯克，负责管辖俄罗斯联邦乌拉尔南部地区的铁路系统，范围包括奥伦堡州、车里雅宾斯克州、库尔干州的大部分铁路，以及萨马拉州、斯维尔德洛夫斯克州、巴什科尔托斯坦共和国的少部分铁路，并有部分铁路延伸至或穿过哈萨克斯坦境内。南乌拉尔铁路局的营业里程为4,934.9公里，与伏尔加铁路局、古比雪夫铁路局、斯维尔德洛夫斯克铁路局、西西伯利亚铁路局相邻，并与南方的哈萨克斯坦铁路连接。 外部链接 （俄文） Южно-Уральская железная дорога — филиал ОАО РЖД （俄文） 南乌拉尔铁路局管辖路线图（一） （俄文） 南乌拉尔铁路局管辖路线图（二） 查 论 编 俄罗斯铁路（集团）股份公司 十月铁路局 · 莫斯科铁路局 · 北高加索铁路局 · 高尔基铁路局 · 古比雪夫铁路局 · 北方铁路局 · 伏尔加铁路局 · 东南铁路局 · 斯维尔德洛夫斯克铁路局 · 南乌拉尔铁路局 · 西西伯利亚铁路局 · 克拉斯诺亚尔斯克铁路局 · 东西伯利亚铁路局 · 后贝加尔铁路局 · 远东铁路局 · 加里宁格勒铁路局 This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here
            Read more