• Unpopular Opinions V. FP should go down more often
    999 replies, posted
Dear most of human race, A number divided by zero is not zero.
I dunno about dying on this hill because Fish doesn't seem worth dying over but there's at least a handful of us that hold similar opinions. Why not?
First off, no calculator ever says "0". It either comes up as "undefined" or "error".
Okay but that's because calculators are specifically programmed to do that? That doesn't actually address the mechanics of why n/0 != 0.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/211575/42edc767-e72a-4ce7-b197-86f127095981/1280px-Hyperbola_one_over_x.svg.png This is the x -> 1/x function. For x=1/2, x=2. For x=1/4, x=4, and so on. The smaller x gets, the larger 1/x becomes. 1/x tends towards +infinity when x tends towards 0 and x>0. Conversely, 1/x tends towards -infinity when x tends towards 0 and x<0. So 1/x isn't defined at 0. For starters, infinity isn't a number, and even then what would you say 1/0 equals? +infinity, or -infinity?
Nah mate, I don't give a shit about Phil Fish as a person; he's a massive loser. I just really enjoyed his game because decoding the in-game language with pen and paper was a lot of fun.
Uhh, why bother programming a calculator to say "undefined" instead of just showing 0?
because that's wrong. Consider that 30/6=a is the same thing as 6xa=30. 30/0 can't equal 0 because that would mean 0x0=30, and simultaneously every other number because you can switch the 30 out with anything. that's the best i can explain it, i am an art major, do not hit.
As Axel explains, if you divide positive numbers closer and closer to 0, it tends towards positive infinity. Likewise, if you divide negative numbers closer and closer to 0, it tends towards negative infinity. Before you suggest otherwise, you can’t average the positive and negative infinities and get 0, given that infinity is a concept and not a number.
Honestly I'd have to go with neither. It's not 0 because as you pointed out, that doesn't really make sense. It also can't be infinity or negative infinity either though because incrementing or decrementing by zero make no progress towards a given point. And division requires you to actually make progress towards the given point in order to work.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/58248/dc1a74f4-dd0c-4c5a-bd06-33761f9e329e/2018-12-20_16-44-59.png https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/58248/5aad96e3-38b2-4ee3-b355-df90683238be/2018-12-20_16-45-17.png The following graphs are y = x/(x+5) and y = x/(x-5) respectively. They are thumbnailed, so click for a bigger view. Notice what happens when x = -5 for the first and x = 5 for the second. For the first one, when x = -5, -5 / (-5 + 5) is -5/0, and in this graph, y tends towards infinity from both the positive and negative sides, and there is no value for x. There is no actual mathematical value here. Look at the second graph, in this one. 5 / (5 - 5) tends towards infinity, again. This is what is meant when people say infinity is a concept, you could stretch these graphs as long as you wanted and you would never actually achieve a mathematical value at x = 5, you would just get a long line that gets closer and closer as y gets higher and higher.
outside of very specific scenarios and occurrences which only really exist in areas of study that don't fulfill ordinary rules of arithmetic (such as complex analysis, in which the definition of a/0 is very important), there's no answer-- it's a completely meaningless expression, with about as much of a mathematical answer as "the quotient of zkgmkdnsm and lbvkjnskjdfgnlkj"; any attempt or method you could use to try and approximate division by zero (such as taking the limit on either side) breaks down; even when you get to higher mathematics where you can theoretically define a division by zero, it doesn't normally give you a numerical value (if it does, it's usually infinity, but this is oftentimes in scenarios where negative infinity and infinity are equal)
What you are talking about is how a creator is not the same as their work. I wouldn't say that is "Death of the Author". "Death of the Author" is this thing that basically says "the meaning of the text is unrelated to what the author intended". I think the idea of that is rather absurd.
Speaking of the "Death of the Author" idea, even among those who do actually understand what it's about, still don't get that it isn't the only way to interpret a work. If you are the kind of person to wheel it out any time someone challenges authorial intent, you are intellectually lazy.
I just hold both ideas in my mind at once
You should not leave your dog with a friend or family member when you go out of town. Leave it with a professional. Also, if you stop someone to pet their dog without their permission, you're a fucking asshole.
Huh, what do you mean?
It's possible to hold the creators concept/interpretation, and your own, as equal or co-existing thoughts/ realities in your mind
That makes sense.
In a better, milder, saner timeline the 2016 elections would had been Sanders vs. Kasich
So all of these calculators were wrong the whole time?
He's saying any artistic product you consume will have its impact diminished if you stubbornly try to apply the intents of the author instead of cultivating your own interpretation. I think that's beautiful to be honest.
Short films are underappreciated. My mother worked in animation, so I grew up with a lot of student films; I wouldn't be the same person without them.
I've never heard of anyone who thinks that a number divided by zero is zero. I've seen people say it should be infinity, but never zero.
The last time I said it was "infinity", like 20 facepunchers jumped down my throat. In some situations it can be infinity (or negative infinity), but if you rework the numbers in multiplication form, infinity makes no sense.
I'm surprised how many people don't realize Death of the Author is a satire of the narcissistic way people disregard logic and context to put forth thier own egocentric interpretations rather than find the much greater value in what a work says about who made it, what they wanted to tell the bworld, and their environment when it was made.
You see literature as historical artefacts that can shed light on the past. Why even read then if you're not a historian or obsessed with factual reality. What exactly elevates the author above the reader? IMO absolutely nothing. so when I read this: All I read is a rude appeal to authority.
Geralt of Rivia > 2B
Though all milk types are fine by me, skim is the greatest. But 1% takes that title when it comes to cereal.
There's nothing wrong with putting a teaspoon of honey in your coffee and I'm sick of the weird looks doing it gets me whenever I have company over :<
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.