News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Imaginary numbers are real by kragen on Saturday July 23, 2022 @03:23PM (#32206694)
Adding some kind of infinitesimals to the reals can be useful, as is done with hyperreal numbers, dual numbers, and other kinds of hypercomplex numbers, but it doesn't allow you to divide by zero; there is no hyperreal or hypercomplex number x that solves x = 1/0.

As I understand it, if you add 1/0 = ∞ you can't treat that ∞ as a quantity in the usual algebraic ways. In particular you can't multiply ∞ by 0 and get back some well-defined quantity such as 1; if you allow that, you quickly find that you can prove that all finite numbers are equal. The standard tricky example of this is in https://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/falseProofs/first1eq2.h...:

Let a = b.

Then a² = ab, a² + a² = a² + ab, 2a² = a² + ab, 2a² - 2ab = a² + ab - 2ab = a² - ab = 2(a² - ab) = 1(a² - ab).

If we then divide both of these last expressions by a² - ab we get 2 = 1. This is only invalid because a² - ab = 0. Adding a different ∞ₙ for each value of n/0, as lisper suggests, doesn't help.

So, if you want to extend your number system with 1/0 = ∞, you either need to throw out some of the standard laws that permit algebraic manipulations like that, or you end up with all finite quantities being equal.

Re:Imaginary numbers are real by LadyCailin on Saturday July 23, 2022 @08:12PM (#32208906)
I am not at all a mathematician, but I just can’t wrap my head around how 1/0 isn’t infinity. 1/1=1, 1/0.5=2, 1/0.25=4, etc. The closer we get to 0, the larger the number. I just can’t accept that if we actually get to 0 in our progression, it is anything besides infinity. Perhaps it becomes its own class of number, like what happened with imaginary numbers. That is, infinity times zero is 1n (where n is a bookkeeping marker like i in the square root of negative numbers), or like with limits, where you have a “+ C” in there.
Re:Imaginary numbers are real by inimino on Saturday July 23, 2022 @10:55PM (#32209862)
> closer we get to 0, the larger the number

From above. What if you approached 0 from below instead?

1/-1=-1, 1/-(1/2)=-2, 1/-(1/4)=-4.

So you just proved that 1/0 equals both positive and negative infinity, and therefore you also just proved that positive and negative infinity are equal. This is one of the reasons why giving 1/0 a definition is rarely seen as useful.

Re:Imaginary numbers are real by kragen on Sunday July 24, 2022 @07:02AM (#32212212)
Well, that's not so bad; they are equal on the real projective line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_projective_line. Making 1 = 2 is a bigger problem.
Re:Imaginary numbers are real by LadyCailin on Sunday July 24, 2022 @08:04AM (#32212613)
Haha, ok this blows my mind a little more now. This definitely helps me conceptualize the problem a bit better, even if I’m still not satisfied with it. I still feel like there is a better solution, like giving 0 a sign or something.
Re:Imaginary numbers are real by kragen on Sunday July 24, 2022 @05:08PM (#32217745)
That is in fact what we do in IEEE 754 floating point! We have +0 and -0; 1/+0 = +∞ and 1/-0 = -∞. However, this means that IEEE 754 floating point violates substitutability, the most basic property of equality, because +0 == -0 but in some cases f(+0) ≠ f(-0).

You may enjoy Tom 7's paper/movie about this: http://tom7.org/nand/

Re:Imaginary numbers are real by codeismath on Saturday July 23, 2022 @10:36PM (#32209746)
Okay, but then you'd show that 1/-1=-1, 1/-0.5=-2, 1/-0.25=-4, etc. The closer you get to 0, the more negative the number. Then you just wouldn't accept that if you actually got to 0 in your progression, it is anything besides negative infinity. And then you've shown that negative infinity is equal to infinity.
Re:Imaginary numbers are real by kragen on Saturday July 23, 2022 @10:14PM (#32209611)
Sure, I definitely agree that 1/0 doesn't give you a finite quantity. What I'm saying is that it doesn't give you a number at all unless you're willing to sacrifice major parts of algebra. And I'm not much of a mathematician either, so I might have gotten something wrong.