Why can’t we actually share by zero? Why do we get an error message instead of a zero as an answer?

Actually, the answer is simple

Suppose you want to divide 100 by 0.
Simply asked, do you ask the question “How many times goes 0 in 100?”, or “How many zeros do you need to get to 100?” The answer is that this is impossible. In higher forms of mathematics, it is claimed that the answer is “infinite” (but let’s take it aside).

A digit by 0 parts so just do not.
And zero divide by 0… either.

Parts is inversely multiply.How many times do you have to multiply zero to reach a value other than zero?
The answer is that this is not possible, there is no valid way to multiply zero to get to a non-zero.And with that, the reverse, sharing, is not possible either.

We can also approach it from a different angle.
If we perform A/b for a positive a value and positive B values with an ever larger B we notice that we are very close to 0, but that this is always positive, and that the series is infinite.
If we perform A/b for a positive a value and negative B values with an ever larger B we notice that we are very close to zero, but that this is always negative, and that the series is infinite.
We can also apply the above to a positive and negative B, where we always use smaller values B, even here we can make an infinite series.With this, we have an infinite but positive series that is getting closer to zero, and an infinite but negative series that is getting closer to zero, while zero is neither.

We can also approach it from the verbal logic.However, this has limitations because it makes it difficult to print more complex numbers.
Suppose we have a pizza that we divide with 4 people.The owner of the restaurant divided and does not eat itself. How much will everyone get? Well, that’s easy: 1/4 pizza. And if it’s 3 people? 1/3 Pizza, also easy. 2 people, every half a (1/2) pizza. And if it is 1 customer? That will get a whole pizza.
Now the owner has made a delicious pizza, but there was no one who ordered it.To whom can he give it?
The answer is not that he divided 1 pizza, because there is no one.The answer is also not that he gives zero pizzas, because he has the thing in his hands. He can’t lose the pizza alone.

This is the essence of the problem: sharing by something is actually dividing, distributing.And if we cannot distribute because there are no recipients, then everything is up.
For any number, positive or negative, whole or fraction, we can use this to distribute.But with zero the distribution stops.
That’s the error that programs and calculators show: I can’t do this, this is impossible.

The reason why this generates an error message, and not a zero, is to indicate that here is what is going on. Because why do you try to distribute if there are no recipients?Then there’s probably something else going on.
A programmer can then consciously choose to give the program or calculator a zero, but this is a deliberate choice, which may or may not be allowed depending on the application.Because in some cases “zero” works fine, but if it is a device that keeps someone alive with as little pain as possible, and when the value 0 serves the full dose of morphine, then you want to avoid it.
Therefore, the default rule is to give an error message (division by zero in English) and let the programmer determine what should be done in this situation.A calculator also displays the same “invalid operation” to show that the calculation is not possible.

That’s why a calculator that displays the infinite symbol -despite all the good intentions -is just wrong.The answer is not infinite, the answer is: impossible.

Share by doing something (12 parts by 3, for example)

Zero is not “something”, because zero is nothing.

You cannot divide by zero.

X children must share five apples among themselves.Each child will get zero apples. How many children should be there to get the five apples on?

This is not going to succeed.Even though there are a million children, if they each get zero apples you never come to five apples.

So 5/0 has no solution.

In itself you could argue that you are converges to [math + \\infty [/math.[Math\\frac {1} {1} = 1 [/math, [Math\\frac {1} {0.5} = 2 [/math, [Math\\frac {1} {0.25} = 4 [/math.Make the denominator ever smaller (closer to 0) and you get an increasing number. In a certain sense, you could divide by zero.

The problem is that you can also approach the problem from the other side.[Math\\frac {1} {-1} =-1 [/math.[Math\\frac {1} {-0.5} =-2 [/math.[Math\\frac {1} {-0.25} =-4 [/math.Make the denominator ever bigger (closer to 0) and you get an increasingly smaller number. In this case, it converges to [math-\\infty [/math.

And so you would be able to answer both [math + \\infty [/math and [math-\\infty [/math , which means it is considered undefined by default.

Supposing this is possible and the result of division of A with Zero is B (A and B are different from zero).

If A/0 = B, then B x 0 = A. But:

  • Each number multiplied by zero equals zero;
  • And A is different from zero.

If we could share a number with zero, it would mean that it is both zero and non-zero, which is absurd and impossible .

You can check for logic:

Part 5 by 1

Part 5 by 1/2

Part 5 by 1/4

Part 5 by 1/8

Part 5 by 1/100

Part 5 by 1/1000

What are you attacking?The answer becomes an ever-increasing number. The closer you get to 0 the greater the outcome.

Part 5 by 1/1000000000000-again a larger number.The farther you go the closer you get to ‘ infinity ‘. The outcome is thus meaningless. Therefore, the appointment: divide by 0 must not.

Leave a Reply