> if you divide by 0, from some standpoints, you do have nothing, because you broke it up into 0 pieces, and 0 pieces is 0. This explains exactly why we should

> if you divide by 0, from some standpoints, you do have nothing, because you broke it up into 0 pieces, and 0 pieces is 0. This explains exactly why we shouldn't divide by 0. The pieces after breakage should, if one is so inclined, be able to be re-assembled into the whole; but, once you break something into 0 pieces, it is gone. Thus at best `0/0` could be defined … but the problem there is not that there's no answer but that every answer is equally good.