• Valthorn@feddit.nu
    0·
    10 months ago

    You have 20 apples that you put into 5 boxes. “How many apples per box?” 20/5=4. Easy.

    You have 20 apples that you put into half a box. “How many apples per box?” 20/0.5=40. You can see how 20 apples in half of a box implies 40 apples per full box.

    You have 20 apples that you don’t put into anything. “How many apples per box?” 20/0=? What box? What are you talking about? How can you suggest that there are a number of apples per box when there’s no box to begin with? Lunatic!

  • Knusper@feddit.de
    0·
    10 months ago

    You mean that it’s undefined?

    You can think of a cake. You can divide a cake into 4 pieces or 2 pieces or basically not divide it, by ‘dividing’ it into 1 piece.

    But it’s not possible to divide a cake into 0 pieces. It doesn’t make logical sense. You have to eat it (subtract from it) to actually make 0 pieces. With division, the sum of all pieces has to be 1 cake. If there’s one cake, there’s at least one piece.

    What’s confusing is that we have separately decided that ‘dividing’ a cake into 0.5 pieces means you multiply it by 2. So, either 2 cakes or a cake that’s twice as large. That is why some mathematicians do treat 1/0 as ∞.

  • Kissaki@feddit.deEnglish
    0·
    10 months ago

    Explain what exactly?

    You can divide 2 apples between two people, or between four people, but you can’t divide them between zero people. That premise doesn’t make sense, the question is incomplete to be answerable.

    By expanding our scale with another dimension (complex numbers in math) we expand the question. How do we add another dimension to the physical, practical anecdote? 🤔

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.worldOP
      0·
      10 months ago

      Can you explain negative multiplication is in this sense? Like -1 * -1 to make it simple?

      Edit: is it like the enemy of my enemy is my friend type deal?

      • Kissaki@feddit.deEnglish
        0·
        10 months ago

        Yes, exactly. A double negation.

        The opposite of the opposite is the same again.

        /edit: anecdotes and simplification are often a balancing act between between simplicity and (thorough) correctness. The opposite thing and enemy of enemy (in a two party premise) fit and practically correct for the Negation of the multiplication. It doesn’t thoroughly represent the multiplication part. But I think the negation is what you were looking for?