Is Dividing by Zero Always an Absurdity?

  • Thread starter DARTZ
  • Start date
In summary: It's hard to tell on teh intarweb. If I am wrong DARTZ, then please don't take offense.Assume A + B = C, and assume A = 3 and B = 2.Multiply both sides of the equation A + B = C by (A + B).We obtain A² + 2AB + B² = C(A + B)Rearranging the terms we haveA² + AB - AC = - AB - B² + BCFactoring out (A + B - C), we haveA(A + B - C) = - B(A + B - C)Dividing both sides by (A + B - C), that is
  • #1
DARTZ
12
0
Assume A + B = C, and assume A = 3 and B = 2.

Multiply both sides of the equation A + B = C by (A + B).

We obtain A² + 2AB + B² = C(A + B)

Rearranging the terms we have

A² + AB - AC = - AB - B² + BC

Factoring out (A + B - C), we have

A(A + B - C) = - B(A + B - C)

Dividing both sides by (A + B - C), that is, dividing by zero, we get A = - B, or A + B = 0, which is evidently absurd.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
DARTZ said:
Factoring out (A + B - C)
Can you elaborate on this step ? What do you mean by "factor out" ?
 
  • #3
DARTZ said:
Dividing both sides by (A + B - C), that is, dividing by zero

which is evidently absurd.

Yes, it is. You can't divide by 0.

It's like saying : 3 * 0 = 4 * 0 and then attempt to divide by 0 to say that 3 = 4.
 
  • #4
DARTZ said:
Assume A + B = C, and assume A = 3 and B = 2.

Multiply both sides of the equation A + B = C by (A + B).

We obtain A² + 2AB + B² = C(A + B)

Rearranging the terms we have

A² + AB - AC = - AB - B² + BC

Factoring out (A + B - C), we have

A(A + B - C) = - B(A + B - C)

Dividing both sides by (A + B - C), that is, dividing by zero, we get A = - B, or A + B = 0, which is evidently absurd.

You can not divide by zero, you must do the following:

[tex]\begin{equation}
\begin{align}
A(A+B-C)+B(A+B-C)=&0\\
(A+B-C)(A+B)=&0
\end{align}
\end{equation}[/tex]

which implies that either:

[tex]
A+B-C=0\\
\text{ or }\\
A+B=0
[/tex]

and of cource the second option is rejected since it contradicts with the first one, unless [tex]C=0[/tex], but if you state at the beginning that [tex]A\neq 0, B\neq 0, \text{ and } C\neq 0[/tex], then the second choise definately must be rejected.

Regards
 
  • #5
This really is what Pengwuino said already, but to elaborate . . . In the set of real numbers (R), every non-zero number a has a multiplicative inverse element a-1 such that a * a-1 = 1. However, the set of real numbers does not contain a multiplicative inverse element for zero, that is, there is no real number x such that 0 * x = 1 (a fact that is relatively easy to prove).
 
  • #6
DARTZ said:
Assume A + B = C, and assume A = 3 and B = 2.

Multiply both sides of the equation A + B = C by (A + B).

We obtain A² + 2AB + B² = C(A + B)

Rearranging the terms we have

A² + AB - AC = - AB - B² + BC

Factoring out (A + B - C), we have

A(A + B - C) = - B(A + B - C)

Dividing both sides by (A + B - C), that is, dividing by zero, we get A = - B, or A + B = 0, which is evidently absurd.
I don't know if I sound like I am robbing straight from your face this problem with "Hey then whatz up?"
Who says 3+2=0 ?
 
  • #7
Alright, in the first line of your argument, you said "assume A+B=C". And your whole argument stems from cancelling out the factor of A+B-C which means dividing by A+B-C, and from your definition of A+B=C implies A+B-C=C-C or A+B-C=0. Therefore you're dividing by zero.
 
  • #8
You divided by zero?

OH SHI-
 
  • #9
DARTZ said:
Dividing both sides by (A + B - C), that is, dividing by zero, we get A = - B, or A + B = 0, which is evidently absurd.

I feel like the original poster, DARTZ, is just posting an interesting demonstration of what kind of mischief dividing by zero leads to and knows perfectly well he can't do so. He even states that he is dividing by 0 and admits the absurdity. DARTZ said he was dividing by zero, and then nearly every post goes and says "hey, you're dividing by zero". I could be wrong though.
 

FAQ: Is Dividing by Zero Always an Absurdity?

What does it mean to prove that 3 + 2 ≠ 0?

To prove that 3 + 2 ≠ 0 means to show that the sum of 3 and 2 is not equal to 0. In other words, it is demonstrating that the statement "3 + 2 equals 0" is false.

Why is it important to prove that 3 + 2 ≠ 0?

It is important to prove that 3 + 2 ≠ 0 because it is a fundamental mathematical concept and it is necessary for accurately solving equations and performing calculations. Additionally, proving this statement can lead to a better understanding of basic mathematical principles.

What evidence can be used to prove that 3 + 2 ≠ 0?

There are several pieces of evidence that can be used to prove that 3 + 2 ≠ 0. One way is to use the commutative property of addition, which states that the order of numbers in an addition equation can be changed without affecting the result. Another way is to use the fact that 3 and 2 are both integers and the sum of two integers can never be 0.

Can the statement 3 + 2 ≠ 0 ever be proven wrong?

No, the statement 3 + 2 ≠ 0 can never be proven wrong as it is a fundamental mathematical principle and is always true. However, it is possible for an individual to make a mistake in their calculations and come to the incorrect conclusion that 3 + 2 equals 0.

What are the consequences if 3 + 2 is mistakenly believed to equal 0?

If someone mistakenly believes that 3 + 2 equals 0, it can lead to incorrect calculations and potentially impact their understanding of basic mathematical principles. It can also lead to errors in solving equations and problems that involve addition. It is important to have a solid understanding of this concept in order to accurately perform mathematical operations.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
844
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top