Page 8 of 10

### Re: Prove me wrong

Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 2:27 am
There is no such thing as concluding that something is defined or undefined. Neither is there any such things as proving defined or undefined. A definition is something that you start with and derive other things from it. You cannot just say something that does not exist, and then make arguments about it. First you need to define what you are talking about. Whether $3@0$ is defined or undefined depends on whether I defined it or not, there is no explanation for it. If you can tell me what $0/0$ is then we can continue the discussion about it's nature. If you cannot tell me what it is then there is no point of talking about it, because it does not exist. So I will ask the question again, what is $0/0$?

### Re: Prove me wrong

Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:17 pm
$0$ doesn't have a multiplicative inverse... Why? Because
$0*1/0$ is not equal to 1... Well how can we say that it is not equal to 1?

### Re: Prove me wrong

Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:46 pm
tanvirab wrote:There is no such thing as concluding that something is defined or undefined?
Ok I assume $\frac00$ undefined. But then what is saying $\frac00$ undefined? Is it something else than concluding

### Re: Prove me wrong

Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 1:34 pm
Saying $0/0$ is undefined means it is not defined, in other words, it does not exist. You cannot conclude something about something that does not exist. Conclusions (and arguments) are about things that exist i.e. can be defined.
Abdul Muntakim Rafi wrote: Because
$0*1/0$ is not equal to 1... Well how can we say that it is not equal to 1?
We cannot say. Because what you wrote is nonsense. There is no such thing as $1/0$ and therefore there is no such thing as multiplying by $1/0$. So the question itself has no meaning and therefore has no answer.
In the same way, whether $0/0$ is defined or undetermined is also a nonsense question. Because there is no such thing as $0/0$, so asking questions about it makes no sense. To ask questions about it, you first need to define what it is. If you cannot define what it is, then it does not exist, in other words undefined.

### Re: Prove me wrong

Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:31 pm
I am asking how can u say $1/0$ is undefined?
$1/0$ has no meaning, we all know that...
But how can u prove it mathematically?

### Re: Prove me wrong

Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:45 pm
Abdul Muntakim Rafi wrote:
But how can u prove it mathematically?
You cannot. That's the point of being undefined. If something is undefined you cannot do mathematics with it. To do mathematics you need to define every object that you talk about. If you cannot say the definition of something, than there is no mathematics about it. Hence I keep asking, what is the definition of $0/0$, but no one answers, everyone just keeps saying other random stuff. Everything we talked about in this whole thread is completely nonsense, because no one has defined the object $(0/0)$ we are talking about.

So I will ask again, what is $0/0$?

### Re: Prove me wrong

Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 2:53 pm
Tanvir bhai, how can you say $1/0$ can not be defined?
The process I gave shows that $1/0$ can't be defined...
But how will you prove that $1/0$ is undefined? You can't just say its undefined cause I can't define it...

And I understand what you are saying... u are saying that first we need to define something before doing maths about it... My question is how can we say something is defined or not?

### Re: Prove me wrong

Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:06 pm
I have a logic to present. See in real numbers $i$ is undefined but that was not bound by the definitions of real numbers only. Only by definition, as you are claiming, it is simply impossible to bound the numbers, whatever it is-real or imaginary. Am I clear or there are obstacles? So I can't agree with you so far.

### Re: Prove me wrong

Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:09 pm
Masum wrote:I have a logic to present. See in real numbers $i$ is undefined but that was not bound by the definitions of real numbers only. Only by definition, as you are claiming, it is simply impossible to bound the numbers, whatever it is-real or imaginary. Am I clear or there are obstacles? So I can't agree with you so far.
I don't understand what you are trying to say.
Abdul Muntakim Rafi wrote: You can't just say its undefined cause I can't define it...
what? Isn't this exactly what undefined means? That you cannot define it?
Your process is nonsense, because in your process you multiply zero by something that does not exist.

### Re: Prove me wrong

Posted: Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:18 pm
I am saying that we tell $\sqrt{-1}$ in $\mathbb R$ because it violates the definition of square root. But we can define it in $\mathbb C$. Can't we? Then how do you say only by the definition of multiplcative inverse that it is completely undefined. According to your claim, may we define it some other way?