MetalCraze said:
Jigawatt said:
Xor said:
I'm usually one of the first to call skyway an idiot, but his sig makes perfect sense
MetalCraze said:
Half of the Codex believes that you can't divide by zero... Are you just as retarded?
He could've chosen any number except zero to make the point - any other number. And boy are there a lot of them. No way you could fluke being that stupid
Now now. Don't try to weasel out. You are a retard who can't read and now try to cut out the most important part around which the quote is built to not look like a retard that you are.
But being a fine monocle wearing gentleman that I am I will help you:
"Half of the Codex thinks that 2/2*0 can't be solved because you can't divide by zero because they completely fail at math"
Xor said:
I'm usually one of the first to call skyway an idiot, but his sig makes perfect sense in the context of the thread that spawned it, which mainly came down to an argument about order of operations. You could read 2/2*0 as (2/2)*0 or 2/(2*0).
Do you see "(" or ")" anywhere in that sentence? No. Why would you multiply first?
Ok, I'm having a go at this. Assume we're using the set theory of numbers - not normally important (it's basically what you're familiar with at high school - think in terms of algebra, rather than calculus) but it in case someone who knows more than I do makes the distinction. The only maths I've done since high school was in formal logic, but my wife did her honours in pure maths so I'll put the question to her afterwards.
Now the way it has been put, in 2/2*0, strictly speaking, is simply poorly written as division and multiplication have equal priority. Obviously left->right takes over, but normally you'd use brackets or similar to confirm intended priority. If you're moving from left to right, you'd go (2/2)*0=0.
The trouble is that the thread that Skyway took the problem from does NOT unequivocably lead us to a 2/2*0 scenario. Instead, we have 2/2(3+9), or something to that effect (structure of 2/2a). IF 2(a+b) meant the same as 2*(a+b), then Skyway would be unequivocably correct. But it doesn't. It means something very similar, but not quite the same thing.
The notation 2(a+b), using direct brackets instead of a multiplication symbol is, as far as I know, a feature of set theory (so no impossible numbers unlike calculus), where it means literally 2 sets of the group (a+b). A purely syntactic system would have no difference between the brackets and the multiplier, which is why I'm saying that the issue is open to resolution in different ways depending on our background assumptions. But under ordinary set theory of numbers, 2/2(3+9) is worked out in the same way as 2/2(a+b) or 2/2c, were c = a+b = 3+9.
Now where Skyway goes wrong is that 2/2c does not give us c. Similary, if we keep 3+9 as a+b, we don't end up with (2/2)(a+b) = a+b. We actually end up with 2/2(a+b) = 2/(2a + 2b).
Again, the difference is that on a set theory mathematics, the parenthesis are not the same as multiplication, even though they usually have the same practical effect. The difference comes in the priority rules, where the brackets literally serves to demarcate a set, so 2(a) means 2 sets of a, rather than '2 multiplied by a'.
It leads to confusion because in high school you don't clearly separate the different systems of mathematics (integer theory, set theory, calculus, semantic/syntactic formula) aside from the general principle that in calculus you use 'impossible' numbers such as the square root of negatives, whereas in other units you put those down as nonsensical (again, depends on whether the system deals with numbers as placeholders for theoretical objects, in which case impossible numbers are of course impossible, or whether the system deals with numbers purely as a series of calculation rules, in which case you can have any numbers the system needs).
I'll post again once my wife gets home and I check to make sure that's roughly on track - as I said, I didn't do maths directly at uni, and I haven't touched it at all since studying formal logic as an undergrad honours.
