I thought it was undefined until this year and I'm a maths student lel. As far as I know it is generally accepted to be 1 but I can't recall why even though I have looked into it before.
I think it is??? i dunno have to look at the video again since it's supposed to be one of those "not possible" things just like a fractions with a demoninator of 0 isn't possible.
I think it is??? i dunno have to look at the video again since it's supposed to be one of those "not possible" things just like a fractions with a demoninator of 0 isn't possible.
I think it mainly boils down to the fact that it is more convenient to have it equal to 1. In one sense, it technically is undefined, but it makes things make more sense in areas like set theory and discrete maths to have it equal 1.
I think it mainly boils down to the fact that it is more convenient to have it equal to 1. In one sense, it technically is undefined, but it makes things make more sense in areas like set theory and discrete maths to have it equal 1.
I thought it was undefined until this year and I'm a maths student lel. As far as I know it is generally accepted to be 1 but I can't recall why even though I have looked into it before.
It is frustrating, but you can just use this simple workaround:
10=20=1
⇒1=2
⇒0=1−1=2−1=1
I believe this lemma makes what you've done perfectly rigorous.
Because if you divide something, the new total is smaller. Half a pizza is smaller than a whole pizza... so I don't understand how -4 divided by anything can equal something greater than 0?
Because if you divide something, the new total is smaller. Half a pizza is smaller than a whole pizza... so I don't understand how -4 divided by anything can equal something greater than 0?
I don't do maths ok!!!!
This is the part which is incorrect
That's like saying "if you add something, the new total is bigger". Not necessarily. What happens if you add a negative number?