The Truth about Division by Zero (Part 3)

[@michaels.steinberg4653]

I really liked this series and your work in general. You have a nice style! And I especially liked that all three videos came out at the same time, so I could binge watch them.

[@Set_your_handle0-0]

Same

[@suricate2964]

As an engineer, I took that personally

[@aintgonnatakeit]

yeah i know it was a bit, but the anti-engineer nonsense is annoying to me source: I'm a math major and i've been hearing these non-funny derisive jokes for decades

[@Somebodyherefornow]

@@aintgonnatakeit 🤓

[@realrealmxd]

ikr 😭 i love both engineering and maths tho

[@everettholbrook3291]

I love that your reasoning for not going into detail on this is: not because it's hard, but because it's very hard.

[@NoName-rd6et]

6:20 epic engineer slander 😳

[@alexor9825]

Mad respects for taking the time to edit and upload all the videos at the same time

[@endermarcuz3053]

"Assuming continuity! What are we!? Engineers?!!" I fricking LOVE YOU! That made me LMAO

[@kstergiou3]

Everyone's sleeping on redbeanie

[@maui9512]

For real

[@jandrzej1264]

Facts.

[@aintgonnatakeit]

I've wanted to know about division by zero since I was a kid, thanks for making this!!

[@robertfox4114]

My god, did he commit suicide? The channel description says "goodbye cruel world"

[@Friendly-Neighborhood-Asexual]

I doubt he did that, he probably took a break like Bill Wurtz and Mumbo Jumbo did

[@methatis3013]

​@@Friendly-Neighborhood-Asexualthis channel is very new though. These guys have been creating videos for years. I just hope the dude is ok

[@littlefish9825]

You might be one of my favorite math youtubers ngl. thanks for the cool vid!

[@Bolpat]

Z* is a bad notation for Z\{0}. Usually, the * means the set of invertible elements. In Q and R, all numbers except zero are, but in Z, only ±1 are invertible.

[@eta.tauri32]

Thanks for the videos !

[@jandrzej1264]

Love ur vids.

[@tonytonychopper6017]

You should talk about why does 0! = 1

[@A_literal_cube]

n! = n*(n-1)*(n-2)*...*3*2*1 = n*(n-1)! (n-1)!=n!/n for n=1: 0!=1!/1=1 This is correct in some way, if you have no things on your table, there is only 1 way to arrange all of the things.

[@BS-bd4xo]

6:28 Yes sir!

[@carlkarenfort219]

loved it

[@theduck1447]

bro, u ok? come back

[@kronologie]

exactly :(

[@angeldude101]

lim x→0⁺ (1/x) = ∞, lim x→0¯ (1/x) = -∞. I don't see the problem. That's perfectly consistent with what we already covered and completely continuous. In fact, why are we even bothering to write them separately when they clearly converge to the same value? lim x→0⁺ (1/x) = lim x→0¯ (1/x) = lim x→0 (1/x) = ∞ = -∞ = 1/0

[@Set_your_handle0-0]

Here we go!!!!!!!!

[@crazytiger6]

The limit thing makes sense though, in part one we said x/0 was both infinity and negative infinity

[@Qermaq]

Engineer: Ok, so the black hole number is "about zero".

[@maui9512]

Really interesting stuff, thank you for sharing subjects that no one else does.

[@luksenborg]

in high school I came across the equation y=3*(x-2)/(x*(x-2)) , which when x=2 becomes y = 0/0 . But it's also y=1.5 somehow.

[@suddeneevee9441]

That would be correct. If x≠2, then the function just becomes y=3/x for ALL x. But only, of course, *if x≠2* So while the functions does straight up _ceases to exist_ at x=2. It still does go 'through' y=1.5 at x=2. (Just plot it on a graphical calculator, like Desmos)

[@AkiTheKiwi]

It's like the function f(x)=x²/x. It's the complete exact same as g(x)=x, but is undefined at x=0. The thing is, while f(x)=g(x), f≠g. The core definition of f=g is their expressions being equal AND being able to compute both of them in the same intervals. Computing 4²=16 THEN dividing by 4 again is not the same process as plugging 4 immediately, and the process matters.

[@agargamer6759]

Love the videos man!

[@cmilkau]

funny enough, if you are using the wheel of real fractions, 1/x actually *is* continuous at x=0, which is possible because this algebra satisfies -∞ = +∞.

[@apple_juice_person5595]

I would LOVE to see a video about addition on that ray graph!

[@ayamrudin7985]

Same!

[@elio7376]

1st

[@Siwdvi]

shut up nerd

[@JuniperHatesTwitterlikeHandles]

imagine caring about discontinuous functions smh