30
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I guess if I were to spill over to the non-numerical and semantical or more linguistically axiomstic representation here,:

  1. The divisor is a number (1)
  2. The dividend is a number (0)
  3. A number divided by another number consequently produces another number
  4. Does mathematics line up with CS on the whole NaN designation? I might be conflating fields or... I dunno. I'm sure there's a palpable issue here you guys can lead this ass to override whatevers going on in my head
[-] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 points 9 months ago

Your third axiom is faulty.

Divisor, Dividend, Quotient. If your axiom is correct, then when I give you any two of these numbers, you should be able to give me the third. Yet when I give you an arbitrary quotient, and a divisor of 0, there is no dividend you can give me to complete the set.

I can thus give you an infinite number of exceptions to your axiom.

this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
30 points (89.5% liked)

Asklemmy

43027 readers
1683 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS