3 ms·
> So it is _not_ a theorem that a * (b / 0) = b * (a / 0) As the article explains, the whole issue about dividing by 0 is the lack of multiplicative inverse. I
by nepeckman 8y ago
> So it is _not_ a theorem that a * (b / 0) = b * (a / 0)
As the article explains, the whole issue about dividing by 0 is the lack of multiplicative inverse. If you define division for 0 as something other than multiplication by the multiplicative inverse, there is no longer an issue doing the division. Hope that helps.
- EugeneOZ 8y agoThen it will be not math.
- esrauch 8y agoI'm curious what you mean by this: there is nothing "privileged" about the system of arithmetic that we usually use and this alternate definition. The math that we all learn up through highschool is a system with a carefully chosen set of axioms that happen to be useful in most cases and has become the default system, but there isn't some intrinsic property of it that makes it "math" and alternate consistent set of axioms "not math".