Re: VOTE on whether 1/oo = 0

From: Adam (addam_at_rogers.com)
Date: 07/14/04 

Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:03:16 GMT

Check out Inversive Geometry and the axioms it uses. It has 1/infinity,
which is why I thought you might be looking for answers like that.

"|-|erc" <gotch@beauty.com> wrote in message
news:O6%Ic.123$K53.81@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Does 1/oo = 0 ?
> >
>
> Thanks to all participants and Kent for his insightful rebuttal on voting
and maths.
>
> No is what I thought that is why I was surprised when Barb Knox claimed
yes.
>
> With all the other bizzare interpretations of maths I was taught that
people
> around here take as correct I had to check.
>
>
> > >> >Or does 1/oo = 0 now?
> > >>
> > >> It certainly does. For example, have a look at
> > >> <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AffinelyExtendedRealNumbers.html>, item
(7).
> > >> Didn't you already know that?
> > >
> > >"these improper elements are not real numbers, and that this system of
> > >extended real numbers is not a field."
> > >
> >
> > Apparently your super-powers do not include reading comprehension. From
the
> > same web page:
> > 'The above statements which define results of arithmetic operations on
oo may
> > be considered as abbreviations of statements about determinate limit
forms.
> > For example, -(+oo) = -oo may be considered as an abbreviation for "If x
> > increases without bound, then -x decreases without bound."'
>
> Which means
> 1/oo = 0 is an abbreviation for lim(x->oo) 1/x = 0
>
> That first "=" is not equals. You are better off using notation
> 1/oo <=> 0
>
>
> **
>
> I do have a liberal perspective on the topic also.
>
> IF you define division by infinity to start with
> THEN you could assign that result as 0.
> IF mice flew to the moon they would eat green cheese. That also could be
correct!
>
> But like someone pointed out a/b = c <-> a/c = b which doesn't work
with division by 0.
> So even you have formula where 1/oo is parsed the result is likely to be
undefined still.
>
> Herc
>
>
>

Quantcast