|
|
divide by zero
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
divide by zero // Roundtable
Post by parva // Dec 7, 2006, 5:27am
|
parva
Total Posts: 822
|
LOL look at this - link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml)
what do you think? It's really so simple and could software error really occur by this and/or solved with this nullity? |
Post by tomasb // Dec 7, 2006, 5:41am
|
tomasb
Total Posts: 261
|
LOL look at this - link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/12/06/divide_zero_feature.shtml)
what do you think? It's really so simple and could software error really occur by this and/or solved with this nullity?
x^2 / x where x = 0 equals to 0.
(x-1)(x+1) / (x-1) where x=1 equals to 2.
you have two 0/0 which each depends on how you compute it: that means that if you get div by zero, somethin is wrong with your computations...
at the least, if your equation satisfies some assumptions, you should use l'hospital rule... there are even equations where 0/0 cannot be calculated. by no means. |
Post by frank // Dec 7, 2006, 6:46am
|
frank
Total Posts: 709
|
I think he makes some bold claims there. I mean, giving the example of a pacemaker or autopilot malfunctioning due to a divide by zero error?
That's what error handling/trapping is for. I've been catching "divide by zero" errors in programs since I was 12. Weeehaaaaaaaa!!!
:) |
Post by Alien // Dec 7, 2006, 6:47am
|
Alien
Total Posts: 1231
|
I can't help but wonder if perhaps the University of Reading should initiate regular drug testing for its employees. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alien42/smilies/rasta.gif |
Post by Steinie // Dec 7, 2006, 6:53am
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
I've been doing my taxes dividing by 0 for years....Income divided by what you think you owe = Amount owed to Federal Gov.
Gotta go the Wardens coming....;) |
Post by Morgan // Dec 7, 2006, 6:58am
|
Morgan
Total Posts: 138
|
Knowing that this is just a news brief, I want to be fair and not declare this totally bogus without seeing more of the actual theory behind this... but as far as what I can determine from what little is shown, this is just redefining the symbol of the problem, not the problem itself.
And it turns out one can look at the theory in this PDF (http://www.bookofparagon.com/Mathematics/SPIE.2002.Exact.pdf). Now, it's been a few years since I've read much mathematical theory, so my word on this should be taken merely as that of a somewhat-informed layman, but it does seem to me as though it's still just a case of redefining the symbol, not the problem.
Particularly when we look at the case of computer programming. Now, it's true that in a divide-by-zero case, a computer program can crash. However, there are two major caveats to this statement. The first is that the situation is far from guaranteed to come up (I have trouble figuring out when a pacemaker, which the BBC article gives as an example, would have a reason to attempt to divide by zero.) The second, and more important one, is that competent programmers are aware of the issue and provide Exception handling for the situation. If a program crashes due to a divide-by-zero error... somebody screwed up.
And "nullity" would not solve this problem, any more than having a symbol for "infinity" solves similar problems. Those situations still need to be programmed for on a case-by-case basis. |
Post by TomG // Dec 7, 2006, 7:05am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
This one in the replies is great:
"Next year some other teacher will come with a theory that says that 2+2 can be equal to 5 for very large values of 2 and small values of 5"
Tom |
Post by Asem // Dec 7, 2006, 7:08am
|
Asem
Total Posts: 255
|
I'm not seeing much of a reason for as for the reasons stated above but maybe ther is something to this theory? There is the case with imaginary numbers, remember i^2 = -1. Though the real problem is where it could really be useful even if it turns out possible though maybe not. |
Post by jamesmc // Dec 7, 2006, 8:15am
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
The problem with the division by zero error is that one tries to define in terms of mathematics what the answer might be.
The answer is that there is no answer or should I say the answer is undefined.
Since we have a necessity to define things that occur in our life we must give
"0/0" a name. I choose to call it "pivot point" That is, that point where all energy and matter must coordinate itself in order to function or even more exist! :rolleyes: The illustration proves the necessity of renaming "0/0" to pivot point so that we may continue to exist. |
Post by JPSofCA // Dec 7, 2006, 9:15am
|
JPSofCA
Total Posts: 300
|
It's really so simple and could software error really occur by this and/or solved with this nullity?
HOGWASH! This nutjob is just setting his students up for disappointment for the temporary gratification of making them feel as though they've accomplished some sort of a breakthrough.
Nullity...PLEASE!
The problem was solved a long time ago by an undefined status. It's undefined because the problem doesn't even exist. You can't divide by zero because zero is not a quantity. It's like dividing by a belch, or a fart or something...you're not doing anything, therefore it is undefined.
Nullity! This is obviously this crackpot's final desperate attempt to try and put himself somewhere within the timeline of academia - the inventor of nullity! Genius! Revolutionary! It was staring us in the face all along, but it took a room full of snot-nosed ten-year-olds, unopressed by years of ancient reasoning to come up with it...the children really are our future! RUBBISH! He needs to be thrown into a straightjacket is what he needs!
Only a malicious incompetent would cause a pacemaker or any other life-critical device to fail due to a division by zero (make sure you don't by a Microsoft pacemaker and you should be fine). ;)
I like the rastafari smiley, too! lol |
Post by daybe // Dec 7, 2006, 9:20am
|
daybe
Total Posts: 562
|
Funny LOL good rant! Nut for sure, trying to get a grant or something. |
Post by 3dpdk // Dec 8, 2006, 11:39am
|
3dpdk
Total Posts: 212
|
Me too frank. Although it's been a while, I remember always to include a divide by zero trap or check
if div <> 0 then n = x / div
So what's the big breakthrough.
Seems to me the "slash-zero" nullifies the math opperation and is just another way to tell the processor to skip it.
null, zip, zilch, aint squat, AND "slash- zero" sill mean zero what ever you call it and can't divide nuttun!
Paul |
Post by tomasb // Dec 8, 2006, 11:49am
|
tomasb
Total Posts: 261
|
hmm. why do we have 1.#INF and -1.#INF? aren't these the same??? or
1.#SNAN or 1.#QNAN... |
Post by W!ZARD // Dec 11, 2006, 3:12am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Let me say up front that I'm not a programmer nor am I much of a mathematician (English was my strongest subject).
Having said that several things stood out for me about this article. Firstly, a majority of respondents were approaching the issue (divide by zero) from a strictly programming perspective - nothing at all wrong with that but it does lead me to wonder if this focus may be missing something.
Before you dismiss me as a crackpot let me point out that the Roman Empire functioned for hundreds of years without even having a 'zero' to divide by!! Roman numerals stared at 1 and Europeans did not even have a concept of zero until it was introduced by the Arabs who got the idea from the Indians who were trying to figure out how to divide by zero back in the seventh century AD.
Here is an interesting article on the history of zero (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/HistTopics/Zero.html).
This leads me to wonder (as I wait for my current render to finish) - on the one hand, maybe Dr Anderson is on to something that seems as ridiculous today as "Earth revolves around the sun" was before Gallileo. Maybe 'nullity' will one day become something that is accepted as self-evident, just as the once novel idea of zero now is.
On the other hand, maybe it's all rubbish!
On the gripping hand, it seems to me that the most sensible approach would be to keep an open mind and avoid jumping to any conclusions - if we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it!
I will wait and see what transpires, secure in the knowledge that whatever we believe today will be considered 'wrong' in the future and knowing that the future will be stranger than anything we can imagine today.
In an infinite universe why should zero be limited to a single definition? Just a thought really.... |
Post by Wigand // Dec 11, 2006, 5:53am
|
Wigand
Total Posts: 462
|
1. Most every computer can divide by 0. The result is an exception error ;-)
2. 0/0 is the same as: If you have no cake and do not divide it, what do you get?
3. Test this, maybe with some friends: You have 5 persons in a room, seven persons leave
this room. Then two must come back to get an empty room. :jumpy: |
Post by Steinie // Dec 11, 2006, 6:33am
|
Steinie
Total Posts: 3667
|
You have 5 persons in a room, seven persons leave
this room. Then two must come back to get an empty room.
You don't throw very good parties do you?;) |
Post by Wigand // Dec 11, 2006, 7:41am
|
Wigand
Total Posts: 462
|
You don't throw very good parties do you?;)
You should had seen the fun I had with minus two persons. :banana: :banana: |
Post by frank // Dec 11, 2006, 9:14am
|
frank
Total Posts: 709
|
HA HA HA HA!
I've enjoyed this thread! Thanks, guys! :) |
Post by Alien // Dec 11, 2006, 2:57pm
|
Alien
Total Posts: 1231
|
2. 0/0 is the same as: If you have no cake and do not divide it, what do you get?
That reminds me of something I heard recently:
Jean Paul Satre walked into a café, & sat at 1 of the tables. A waitress came over & asked what she could get for him.
"coffee, without cream please" he said
"I'm sorry, but we're out of cream - would you like 1 without milk instead?"
:) |
|
