Why is this not 0 on 50g or Prime?

[Vtile]

(07-18-2018 05:18 PM)ijabbott Wrote:  

(07-18-2018 04:05 PM)Vtile Wrote:  First of yes, that is the right consensus and mathematically solid definition. Hence my note of my personal rather meaningless philosophical little thinking game.

However if 1/inf = 0 and (a/b)/(a/b) = 1 then it would be only reasonable to say that (1/inf)/(1/inf) = 1 and 0/0 = 1. However it is not allowed to declare inf = inf, but inf <> inf is only allowed. For mathematical rigor this (0/0=1) of course is not the case since there is these 'special' rules and blu tack for certain things.

So if \(0/0 = 1\), does \(2\cdot 0/0 = 0/0 = 1\) or does \(2\cdot 0/0 = 2\cdot 1 = 2\)? Things are undefined for a reason!

Number 2 would be solution, for symbolic state (2a/b)*(b/a) = 2, where a=1 and b=inf.

.. But what if +inf + n = -inf

Mind you personal view and small amusing thinking game, like I said earlier if something is not working I throw it out of the window.