Talk:0/0

I have redirected 0/0 to indeterminate form following VFD discussion. See: Votes for deletion/0/0 -- Wile E. Heresiarch 06:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Errr - guys, this really isn't heading towards an encyclopedia article at present.

Charles Matthews 11:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That is true.


 * If you know anything about slope than you will know that $$\frac {0}{?}$$ is going to equal 0 no matter what.

"No matter what" is a considerable exaggeration! And knowledge that 0/a is 0 whenver a is not zero comes long before any talk of slope.


 * You will also know that $$\frac {?}{0}$$ is always going to be undefinable.

True (except the word "also").


 * ''But when solving for $$\frac {0}{0}$$,

"Solving for"?? One solves an equation for a variable. Here there is no equation; "0/0" is not an equation. Nor does any variable appear in that expression. The phrase solving for is frequently used in this way by liberal-arts student required to take a math course but who don't like it and intend to sit down and forget it when the course is over. It is a childish usage.


 * you are not sure whether to use the equal zero rule, or the undefinable rule. Therefore, could $$\frac {0}{0}$$ equal 1, 0, could it be undefinable.

... (sigh)


 * In the next section, I will show you what I think.

This is not the kind of language that should be used in an encyclopedia article, especially with an NPOV convention.


 * Solving $$\frac {0}{0}$$

Childish language again. One solves equations; this is not an equation. One could say "evaluating 0/0".


 * $$I \, think \, \frac {0}{0} \approx \infty $$
 * $$Which \, would \, equal \, 0\approx 0 $$

This is crackpot writing. And why put words inside TeX?


 * $$And \, if \, \infty \, is \, a \, concept \, that \, means \, to \, plug \, any \, number \, in \, than \, any \, of \, the \, following \, equations \, would \, equal \, Zero \; $$

... and what follows are not equations. And an equation cannot equal a number. As I said, childish misunderstanding of what those words mean.

I'm going to redirect this page to indeterminate form. Michael Hardy 15:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This new article isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia - it's merely quotes from web sites' opinions about what 0/0 means. I know that you are trying to be helpful, but indeterminate form does cover 0/0 - in fact 0/0 is the most common indeterminate form. I would suggest that you add some helpful external links on that page to the sources where you got these quotes from rather than making this a new page. --Chessphoon 21:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

'''Give me 1 reason to delete this page!? Belgian man 09:10, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The redirect was the correct thing to do. Indeterminate form is an informative discussion on what indeterminate forms are; this page, on the other hand, is an embarassingly amateur and laughable attempt to "solve" 0/0.  The continued existence of this article lowers the Wikipedia's reputation for mathematical excellence &mdash; I would have flagged it for speedy deletion.  But if you still want to argue to keep this ... this nonsense, then add a comment to Votes for deletion/0/0.  --Ardonik.talk 17:44, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * These are opinions of what 0/0 is. 0/0 has not been solved, therefore, many mathematicians say it is undefinable.

Lest anyone wonder: "0/0 has not been solve" is an example of what I meant by childish language. One solves equations; this is not an equation. This is an expression; on evaluates expressions.

Whoever wrote this also seems to suggest that some unsolved mathematical problem is expressed, and perhaps even that there is controversy among mathematicians about this. That is nonsense. Michael Hardy 22:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Total rewrite
I have just completely rewritten this article. My guiding principle in so doing is to provide an explanation as to why 0/0 is undefined for a reader who knows nothing of field theory. I have tried to direct the reader in the direction of the fascinating things that have come from defining previously undefined concepts while also showing why this is unlikely to happen with 0/0. I hope that this article can now be kept and I shall be voting as such. A pearl can grow out of a grain of grit. Barnaby dawson 12:41, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think this draft probably makes too many points, alluding to too many fallacies and so on. Charles Matthews 13:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Michael Hardy's edit: I agree that if we take the expression to be a rule used to generate a value from a given x then x/x does not have a value defined at x=0. I want to make the point that if we further assume the function given by x/x is continous then we can find its value at x=0 which is effectively the same thing as saying 'if we take the limit'. I've changed the paragraph to reflect this and removed the deletion viewpoint. I do not agree that indeterminate form has all that needs saying on this subject. Perhaps material from this page should be moved to another page but I do think that an explanation as to why certain things are left undefined in mathematics is useful.

I also responded to Chales Matthews' suggestion for less on the fallacies although I have left the other material. Barnaby dawson 16:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Really we can see two separate issues being voted upon on the VfD page:


 * Whether 0/0 ought to be deleted, reverted or kept.
 * Whether the new material was worth keeping.

On the first question there were was a minority who wished to keep. On the second question there was a majority in favor of keeping. I regard this as justification for keeping the material but moving it to the page mentioned below. Barnaby dawson 10:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If anyone is still following this page, see the New Page Zero divided by zero by Barnaby dawson. SWAdair | Talk  10:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This page shouldn't even exist see Votes for deletion/0/0 considerable majority in favour of redirection or deletion. --metta, T he  S unborn  &#x2638;  19:55, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)