This article argues that x ÷ 0 = x, mentions that x ÷ 1 also equals x only in passing (“This is the exact same result as if it would be divided by one”), and al

This article argues that x ÷ 0 = x, mentions that x ÷ 1 also equals x only in passing (“This is the exact same result as if it would be divided by one”), and also doesn’t mention (likely doesn’t realize) how that breaks the relation between division and multiplication (e.g. a ÷ b = c implies b × c = a, so if one wants to keep that, multiplying by zero should produce any number or, maybe, a random one, or all numbers simultaneously, or be impossible.) Either is a choice one can make, but not one that’s convenient.