• cheese_greater@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year 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.