4 ms·
My math is rusty but 1 / 0 := 0 implies that 0 * 0 := 1. This contradicts the definition of a binary field [1], let alone a field of real numbers. [1] https://
by geoalchimista 8y ago
My math is rusty but 1 / 0 := 0 implies that 0 * 0 := 1. This contradicts the definition of a binary field [1], let alone a field of real numbers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GF(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GF(2)
> "It is totally fine to define 1/0 = 0."
No, it's not, at least not useful. If you define it that way, you will not have a field. Then you don't have +, -, *, and / operations with the commonly assumed behavior. However, it is definitely possible to define some operation such that 1 `op` 0 := 0, just not the inverse operation of multiplication.
- emileokada 8y ago> However, it is definitely possible to define some operation such that 1 `op` 0 := 0, just not the inverse operation of multiplication. If you read the post this is actually exactly what the OP is saying.
- geoalchimista 8y agoSure, the author spent a long blog essay and didn't get the point across as clearly as many of the comments here on HN. If this were to be a research paper it would likely get rejected without a review. Not to mention the whole point of the idea is trivial. Why reinvent a wheel that traps everyone into the author's whimsical thinking when there is a standard way of doing this thing (1 / 0 => raise ZeroDivisionError)? I, for one, will respectfully decline to use any programming language that defines 1/0 to be 0.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]