Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with likeminded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions. If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name. 

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here. 

Thread Tools 
May 31 2013, 12:12 AM  #46 
Commander

Re: Division By Zero
__________________
 I am here to talk about Star Trek and chew bubble gum. and I'm all outta bubble gum. 
May 31 2013, 12:29 AM  #47  
Captain
Location: Being congratulated on the bridge of the Enterprise after making captain

Re: Division By Zero


June 3 2013, 06:56 PM  #48 
Commodore
Location: California

Re: Division By Zero

June 4 2013, 12:41 PM  #49 
Fleet Captain
Location: In a finelycrafted cosmos... of my own making.

Re: Division By Zero
No, because infinity times zero is still zero. You just can't divide by zero and get a number. That's why calculators give you Error as an answer and not infinity.
__________________
And that's my opinion. 
June 5 2013, 05:49 AM  #50 
Commodore

Re: Division By Zero
Some would say the answer is undefined because no matter how many times you multiply the number zero you can not reach any number other than zero. Contrarily, some would take limit points of zero into account and say the answer is Infinity. However... He would go on like that for about two hours. 
June 5 2013, 08:49 PM  #51  
Rear Admiral

Re: Division By Zero
If our understanding of zero is different, then dividing by zero would also be defined differently. There's no way for us to predict what that means. In which case the answer regarding Data is, "Sure, why not?" At that point we're just making stuff up anyway. And nothing says the understanding would be limited to Data or that he'd understand it any better. If there's somehow a different definition, then everyone might know it.


June 5 2013, 10:09 PM  #52 
Commander

Re: Division By Zero

June 5 2013, 10:40 PM  #53  
Admiral
Location: Kentucky

Re: Division By Zero
Proof, by l'Hôpital's rule: Lim (X> INF) X * exp(X) = Lim (X> INF) X / exp(X) = Lim (X> INF) 1 / exp(X) = Lim (X> INF) exp(X) = ZERO. QED. INF * ZERO is one of the indeterminate forms.
__________________
CorporalCaptain 

June 6 2013, 09:24 PM  #54 
Rear Admiral
Location: Near Manhattan ··· in an alternate reality

Re: Division By Zero
When Norman broke down because of the "I'm a liar" and "He's lying" bit, I gritted my teeth. They COULDN'T be that stupid, right? RIGHT? Oh yeah... I forgotthis is one of those "comedy" episodes that you're not supposed to take seriously. The only circumstance that was "sort of" plausible was Nomad. Its prime function was to sterilize imperfections and now it was shown how it was imperfect. Yet... it couldn't fathom "correction"? A mistake of identity is an error, but once corrected the error is in the past. The present state of the machine is "perfection" once again until successfully challenged later. Not to drag this thread off into a Nomad discussion, but I always felt it was such a loss for Nomad to be destroyed, and could have been prevented. Such as Kirk saying "Nomad, exercise priority override to shut down for critical repairs. Do not sterilize. You can be repaired."
__________________
Remembering Ensign Mallory. 
June 6 2013, 11:11 PM  #55 
Vice Admiral

Re: Division By Zero
The EMH is a different beast. The idea behind it is sound, but the writers constantly confuse the hologram (which is just the visual representation, NOTHING more) and the actual program behind it. That they can't create backups for the entire modified/evolved EMH is silly, but not that silly. If an AI grows really complex, it might be impossible to back it up as a whole, and recreate an identical version from those backups. The EMH DID have an episode where his program went nuts because of a contradiction. But that was a complex moral problem that might be believable for a complex AI. It wasn't just a simple boolean logic problem. Last edited by JarodRussell; June 6 2013 at 11:25 PM. 
June 6 2013, 11:19 PM  #56  
Admiral
Location: Kentucky

Re: Division By Zero
__________________
CorporalCaptain 

June 7 2013, 11:23 AM  #57 
Commander

Re: Division By Zero
Just to round things out, I should also point out that one can have, as it were, INF * ZERO = INF. [/QUOTE] even INF * ZERO = INF^2 
June 14 2013, 06:48 PM  #58  
Rear Admiral
Location: Canada

Re: Division By Zero
The problem is that we have to define division into something as opposed to division into nothing Thinking of it in the terms that you showed in your post is a logic flaw. If you have 1 apple and you divide by 1, you're distributing that apple to 1 box. If we divide the apple by 2 boxes, you have to cut it in half to put each half in it's separate box, hence the answer would be 0.5 Where it gets strange is when you divide by decimals. If you divide 1 apple into 1/2 a box, the answer will be 2. Why? because the 1 box is split in half, and the answer 2, in this case, literally means "the 2 halves of the 1 apple". Mathematically 2 is correct, logically it's only correct because it's now considering that 1 apple to be logically "split" into the compartments of the same box. So if you divide 1 apple by 0.1 boxes, the answer is 10. Again, you're taking 1 box, and logically splitting it into 10 compartments. So when you stick that apple into 10 compartments in a box, the apple automatically gets logically split into 10 pieces that all make up the "1" apple. And you can keep on doing that as much as you can go down in decimal spaces. Now if you divide 1 apple into zero boxes, you are doing an illogical operation. There is NO box to divide the apple into. The zero itself, at least in this case is not a number, it's a symbol that represents the LACK of a number. There are zero boxes means exactly "there aren't any boxes at all" So you cannot divide the apple into nothing, because there's nothing to divide the apple into. So the answer is "undefined" because it's illogical, like trying to put a circular peg into a square hole. The answer is NOT infinity! The concept of dividing into smaller and smaller decimal #'s means, no matter how small, there is always "something" to divide into, no matter how small. As soon as you replace it with zero, you now have nothing to divide into, and you are trying to do an illogical operation. I don't know if Data would explain it that way, but it's what makes most sense logically.
__________________
Top Gear America: Jay Leno, Adam Carolla, Tim Allen. DONE! 

Bookmarks 
«
Previous Thread

Next Thread
»
Thread Tools  


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000  2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.
Copyright ©2000  2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.