proof that 1/0 * 0 = -1 + others

[dELtaluca]

two lines are perpendicular if the product of their gradients is -1

given two lines (x and y axis) <1,0> and <0,1>

their gradients are 0/1 and 1/0, since they are parrallel

(1/0) * 0 = -1,
(0/0) = -1

for the y axis, lim(x->0) 1/x for x>0 is infinity, and for negative y axis, lim(x->0) -1/x for x>0 is -infinity

so 0*inf = -1 and 0*-inf = 1 :D lol i know that the -1 thing only counts for definable gradients, but its still funny

[Kurt-1-1]

It's a shame you had to divide by 0 to get there.

[Ghost-Ryder]

i think someone has way to much free time on thier hands...

[DareDevilGuy]

At 4/17/06 12:48 PM, Kurt_1 wrote: It's a shame you had to divide by 0 to get there.

I love you

[Sinouxy]

At 4/17/06 12:47 PM, -dELta- wrote:

I didnt understand a word you said little kid but you touched me. (non sexual)

[poxpower]

At 4/17/06 12:49 PM, Ghost_Ryder wrote: i think someone has way to much free time on thier hands...

Don't worry, its the "what I saw in math class today" syndrome.

My sister has that too.

[ArtemisTheHunter]

Some one has way to much school on there hands.

[dELtaluca]

At 4/17/06 12:50 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

At 4/17/06 12:49 PM, Ghost_Ryder wrote:

Don't worry, its the "what I saw in math class today" syndrome.

actually it isnt, i was working on a method of ray-capsule intersection, which included finding the rotation matrice to rotate the ray by to intersect a horizontal capsule, and the inverse to rotate back again to get world coordinate, and i was supporting it with a proof, to find the matrix, i had the normalised capsule line segment vector, and one of its perpendicular vectors (this is only for 2D, so its all in the x,y plane), and a proof for that

a = <x,y>
b = <+/-y, +/-x> where the +/- are opposite sign

so to show their perpendicular for the case when its -y and +x

y/x * x/-y = -1, xy / -xy = -1 which is true, and then thought about the axes, which would give (supposing <x,y> is <1,0> for x axis) 0/0 = -1 (or keeping the sign which sort of makes more sense in this case 0/-0 = -1)

[Yiffy]

Wow, you must feel smart.

[G-F-D]

im confused o_O

[josh483]

Well not really as the gradient 1/0 = 0 so the perpedicular = 0.. So this is impossible and these lines cant exist.

[Matt1010]

Dude you say'd axis and = to many times for my brain, I need to stupify it now.

[Nightmaric]

My anus is red now.

[bigexplosions]

You'd be great friends with one of my friends.

[josh483]

At 4/17/06 01:11 PM, josh483 wrote: Well not really as the gradient 1/0 = 0 so the perpedicular = 0.. So this is impossible and these lines cant exist.

Opps i meant 0/1 = 0.. So anything x 0 = 0.. So cant be two lines.

[dELtaluca]

At 4/17/06 01:13 PM, josh483 wrote:

At 4/17/06 01:11 PM, josh483 wrote: Well not really as the gradient 1/0 = 0 so the perpedicular = 0.. So this is impossible and these lines cant exist.

Opps i meant 0/1 = 0.. So anything x 0 = 0.. So cant be two lines.

well the point of it is its a false proof using division by 0, its not supposed to be true

[dELtaluca]

At 4/17/06 01:16 PM, KemCab wrote: Please clarify, I can't understand where you're getting at.

I understand what you're saying about y=1/x...

(as x approaches 0, y approaches infinity from the right, and y approaches infinity from the left, and the limit does not exist at 0), but what does this have to do with this?

well, just because 1/0 is undefined, doesnt mean you cant use it, find the area under the graph of 1/x for 0 to 1, you cant get a value, but if you use 1/sqrt(x), again even though when x = 0 you dont get a value, you can get a value for the area being 1/2

but anyways, i was just fakely backing it up using limits (fakely in that it is still false)

since if if you rotate the x,y, axes by any number (par from a full rotation), youll get -1, and as the rotation approaches a 0 angle rotation, you should still get -1 (even though you dont since you divide by 0)

According to your profile, I'm a year younger than you, and I haven't got past differential equations yet. Are you just trying to appear smarter...

im 15, but im doing my A-Level maths

[josh483]

im 15, but im doing my A-Level maths

doesnt seem very A level to me.. A level would include Differantion, Intergration and some lame ass Circle theroeam Trig idenetities to proove it.,

[jonthomson]

At 4/17/06 01:29 PM, -dELta- wrote: im 15, but im doing my A-Level maths

A-level maths is a piece of piss.

[dELtaluca]

At 4/17/06 01:31 PM, josh483 wrote:

im 15, but im doing my A-Level maths

doesnt seem very A level to me.. A level would include Differantion, Intergration and some lame ass Circle theroeam Trig idenetities to proove it.,

lol, just because im doing A-Level doesnt mean i need to use it at every oppurtunity i get

oh and i misread my own post, i was using the limits thing to give other false proofs that 0* +/- inf = -1

[dELtaluca]

At 4/17/06 01:34 PM, jonthomson wrote:

At 4/17/06 01:29 PM, -dELta- wrote: im 15, but im doing my A-Level maths

A-level maths is a piece of piss.

yeh, its still too easy for me but it is still alot harder than GCSE though

[josh483]

Only done c1 and c2 and S1.. Nothing to troubling to far...

[Shrapnel]

At 4/17/06 12:50 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

Don't worry, its the "what I saw in math class today" syndrome.

My sister has that too.

My neighbour has a habit of telling me 'what I saw at the strip club today' syndrome.

He's told the ping pong ball story to me 8 times now.

[Rabbi-Indie-The-Rad]

Jesus christ, what's your problem!? These are general forum regulars, they can't even handle basic math!

You monster, you must've overloaded atleast 20 brains from the impact of reading something intelligent!