Another proof that dividing by 0 does not exist — is it right? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowHow do you explain to a 5th grader why division by zero is meaningless?Proof that $Bbb Z$ has no other subring than itselfProof that odd perfect numbers cannot consist of single unique factors?showing that no repunit is a square - proof verificationUsing induction, prove that $(3^2^n -1)$ is divisible by $2^n+2$ but not by $2^n+3$.Proof that $sqrt2$ is irrationalProve that between two unequal rational numbers there is another rationalMultiplicative inverse questionsIs my proof of $sqrt2 + sqrt3 + sqrt5$ is an irrational number valid?Proof of even numbersLeft and Right inverses - Proof by contradiction

Is the offspring between a demon and a celestial possible? If so what is it called and is it in a book somewhere?

Small nick on power cord from an electric alarm clock, and copper wiring exposed but intact

A hang glider, sudden unexpected lift to 25,000 feet altitude, what could do this?

Do I need to write [sic] when including a quotation with a number less than 10 that isn't written out?

Is there a rule of thumb for determining the amount one should accept for a settlement offer?

logical reads on global temp table, but not on session-level temp table

How does a dynamic QR code work?

Is it possible to make a 9x9 table fit within the default margins?

Which acid/base does a strong base/acid react when added to a buffer solution?

Why did the Drakh emissary look so blurred in S04:E11 "Lines of Communication"?

Why did early computer designers eschew integers?

Why doesn't Shulchan Aruch include the laws of destroying fruit trees?

Does Germany produce more waste than the US?

How can a day be of 24 hours?

How dangerous is XSS

How exploitable/balanced is this homebrew spell: Spell Permanency?

Why was Sir Cadogan fired?

Creating a script with console commands

Find a path from s to t using as few red nodes as possible

Is it a bad idea to plug the other end of ESD strap to wall ground?

How seriously should I take size and weight limits of hand luggage?

Can you teleport closer to a creature you are Frightened of?

Mathematica command that allows it to read my intentions

Free fall ellipse or parabola?



Another proof that dividing by 0 does not exist — is it right?



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowHow do you explain to a 5th grader why division by zero is meaningless?Proof that $Bbb Z$ has no other subring than itselfProof that odd perfect numbers cannot consist of single unique factors?showing that no repunit is a square - proof verificationUsing induction, prove that $(3^2^n -1)$ is divisible by $2^n+2$ but not by $2^n+3$.Proof that $sqrt2$ is irrationalProve that between two unequal rational numbers there is another rationalMultiplicative inverse questionsIs my proof of $sqrt2 + sqrt3 + sqrt5$ is an irrational number valid?Proof of even numbersLeft and Right inverses - Proof by contradiction










17












$begingroup$


Ok I am in grade 9 and I am maybe too young for this.



But I thought about this, why dividing by 0 is impossible.



Dividing by 0 is possible would mean 1/0 is possible, which would mean 0 has a multiplicative inverse.



So if we multiply a number by 0 then by 1/0 we get the same number.



But thats impossible because all numbers multiplied by 0 gives 0 therefore we can’t have an inverse for 0, as that gives us the initial number and thus division by 0 is impossible



Is this right?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    8 hours ago






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
    $endgroup$
    – ErotemeObelus
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    2 hours ago















17












$begingroup$


Ok I am in grade 9 and I am maybe too young for this.



But I thought about this, why dividing by 0 is impossible.



Dividing by 0 is possible would mean 1/0 is possible, which would mean 0 has a multiplicative inverse.



So if we multiply a number by 0 then by 1/0 we get the same number.



But thats impossible because all numbers multiplied by 0 gives 0 therefore we can’t have an inverse for 0, as that gives us the initial number and thus division by 0 is impossible



Is this right?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    8 hours ago






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
    $endgroup$
    – ErotemeObelus
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    2 hours ago













17












17








17


2



$begingroup$


Ok I am in grade 9 and I am maybe too young for this.



But I thought about this, why dividing by 0 is impossible.



Dividing by 0 is possible would mean 1/0 is possible, which would mean 0 has a multiplicative inverse.



So if we multiply a number by 0 then by 1/0 we get the same number.



But thats impossible because all numbers multiplied by 0 gives 0 therefore we can’t have an inverse for 0, as that gives us the initial number and thus division by 0 is impossible



Is this right?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Ok I am in grade 9 and I am maybe too young for this.



But I thought about this, why dividing by 0 is impossible.



Dividing by 0 is possible would mean 1/0 is possible, which would mean 0 has a multiplicative inverse.



So if we multiply a number by 0 then by 1/0 we get the same number.



But thats impossible because all numbers multiplied by 0 gives 0 therefore we can’t have an inverse for 0, as that gives us the initial number and thus division by 0 is impossible



Is this right?







proof-verification






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 2 hours ago









H Huang

401111




401111






New contributor




Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 8 hours ago









Selim Jean ElliehSelim Jean Ellieh

965




965




New contributor




Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











  • $begingroup$
    Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    8 hours ago






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
    $endgroup$
    – ErotemeObelus
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    2 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    8 hours ago






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
    $endgroup$
    – ErotemeObelus
    4 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
    $endgroup$
    – Maria Mazur
    2 hours ago















$begingroup$
Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
Sometimes division by zero is defined, such as in the extended complex plane.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
8 hours ago




11




11




$begingroup$
Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
$endgroup$
– ErotemeObelus
4 hours ago





$begingroup$
Your answer is 100% correct and you should probably become a mathematician. These kinds of answers (mathematicians also call them proofs) are what mathematicians do all day long.
$endgroup$
– ErotemeObelus
4 hours ago













$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
$endgroup$
– Maria Mazur
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/questions/2883450/…
$endgroup$
– Maria Mazur
2 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















22












$begingroup$

That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):



  • What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)

  • What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$)

  • What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)





share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    6












    $begingroup$

    Yes . . . and no.



    You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 10




      $begingroup$
      You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
      $endgroup$
      – Arthur
      8 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      8 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      8 hours ago






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
      $endgroup$
      – Shaun
      8 hours ago






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
      $endgroup$
      – YiFan
      5 hours ago


















    0












    $begingroup$

    That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.



    Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.



    A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,

    - $a+b=b+a$,

    - $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,

    - $e_++a=a$,

    - there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,

    - $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,

    - $e_timestimes a=a$,

    - there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.



    Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.



    Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );






      Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3171071%2fanother-proof-that-dividing-by-0-does-not-exist-is-it-right%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      22












      $begingroup$

      That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):



      • What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)

      • What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$)

      • What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)





      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        22












        $begingroup$

        That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):



        • What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)

        • What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$)

        • What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)





        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          22












          22








          22





          $begingroup$

          That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):



          • What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)

          • What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$)

          • What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)





          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          That's the most basic reason that division by $0$ is usually considered to be a Bad Thing, yes. Because if we did allow dividing by $0$, we would have to give up at least of one of the following things (these are usually considered Very Nice):



          • What $1$ means ($1cdot a = a$ for any $a$)

          • What $0$ means ($0 cdot a = 0$ for any $a$)

          • What division means ($frac ab = c$ means $a = ccdot b$)






          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 8 hours ago









          ArthurArthur

          121k7121208




          121k7121208





















              6












              $begingroup$

              Yes . . . and no.



              You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$








              • 10




                $begingroup$
                You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
                $endgroup$
                – Arthur
                8 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
                $endgroup$
                – Shaun
                8 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
                $endgroup$
                – Shaun
                8 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
                $endgroup$
                – Shaun
                8 hours ago






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                @Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
                $endgroup$
                – YiFan
                5 hours ago















              6












              $begingroup$

              Yes . . . and no.



              You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$








              • 10




                $begingroup$
                You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
                $endgroup$
                – Arthur
                8 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
                $endgroup$
                – Shaun
                8 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
                $endgroup$
                – Shaun
                8 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
                $endgroup$
                – Shaun
                8 hours ago






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                @Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
                $endgroup$
                – YiFan
                5 hours ago













              6












              6








              6





              $begingroup$

              Yes . . . and no.



              You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              Yes . . . and no.



              You might be interested in, for example, Wheel Theory, where division by zero is defined.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited 8 hours ago

























              answered 8 hours ago









              ShaunShaun

              9,933113684




              9,933113684







              • 10




                $begingroup$
                You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
                $endgroup$
                – Arthur
                8 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
                $endgroup$
                – Shaun
                8 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
                $endgroup$
                – Shaun
                8 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
                $endgroup$
                – Shaun
                8 hours ago






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                @Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
                $endgroup$
                – YiFan
                5 hours ago












              • 10




                $begingroup$
                You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
                $endgroup$
                – Arthur
                8 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
                $endgroup$
                – Shaun
                8 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
                $endgroup$
                – Shaun
                8 hours ago






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
                $endgroup$
                – Shaun
                8 hours ago






              • 5




                $begingroup$
                @Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
                $endgroup$
                – YiFan
                5 hours ago







              10




              10




              $begingroup$
              You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
              $endgroup$
              – Arthur
              8 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              You think this is very relevant for a ninth grader? I mean, it might be cool to know it's out there, but does this really answer the question that is asked?
              $endgroup$
              – Arthur
              8 hours ago




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
              $endgroup$
              – Shaun
              8 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              That's a fair comment, @Arthur. Thank you for the feedback.
              $endgroup$
              – Shaun
              8 hours ago




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
              $endgroup$
              – Shaun
              8 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              What d'you think, @SelimJeanEllieh?
              $endgroup$
              – Shaun
              8 hours ago




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
              $endgroup$
              – Shaun
              8 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              Oh: The OP has insufficient rep to comment. Nevermind.
              $endgroup$
              – Shaun
              8 hours ago




              5




              5




              $begingroup$
              @Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
              $endgroup$
              – YiFan
              5 hours ago




              $begingroup$
              @Arthur I think this is extremely relevant. It shows that division by zero isn't some sort of sacred thing that we must not touch, it's just contradictory to the three Very Nice things in your post, and there are systems of "multiplication" and "division" out there where we are allowed to divide by zero. +1 for this answer.
              $endgroup$
              – YiFan
              5 hours ago











              0












              $begingroup$

              That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.



              Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.



              A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,

              - $a+b=b+a$,

              - $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,

              - $e_++a=a$,

              - there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,

              - $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,

              - $e_timestimes a=a$,

              - there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.



              Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.



              Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                0












                $begingroup$

                That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.



                Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.



                A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,

                - $a+b=b+a$,

                - $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,

                - $e_++a=a$,

                - there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,

                - $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,

                - $e_timestimes a=a$,

                - there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.



                Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.



                Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.



                  Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.



                  A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,

                  - $a+b=b+a$,

                  - $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,

                  - $e_++a=a$,

                  - there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,

                  - $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,

                  - $e_timestimes a=a$,

                  - there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.



                  Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.



                  Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  That is quite right. However, I would like you to have a higher point of view.



                  Mathematicians derive theorems from axioms and definitions. And here is the definition of a field.



                  A field is a set $F$ equipped with two binary operations $+,times$, such that there exists $e_+, e_times$, such that for all $a,b,cin F$,

                  - $a+b=b+a$,

                  - $(a+b)+c=a+(b+c)$,

                  - $e_++a=a$,

                  - there exists $a'$ such that $a'+a=e_+$,

                  - $(atimes b)times c=atimes (btimes c)$,

                  - $e_timestimes a=a$,

                  - there exists $a''$ such that $a''times a=e_times$ if $ane e_+$.



                  Now verify that the rationals and the reals are fields.



                  Try and prove that if there exists $x$ such that $xtimes e_+=e_times$, the set $F$ can only have one element.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 56 mins ago









                  TreborTrebor

                  95815




                  95815




















                      Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                      Selim Jean Ellieh is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid


                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3171071%2fanother-proof-that-dividing-by-0-does-not-exist-is-it-right%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to create a command for the “strange m” symbol in latex? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?Writing bold small caps with mathpazo packageplus-minus symbol with parenthesis around the minus signGreek character in Beamer document titleHow to create dashed right arrow over symbol?Currency symbol: Turkish LiraDouble prec as a single symbol?Plus Sign Too Big; How to Call adfbullet?Is there a TeX macro for three-legged pi?How do I get my integral-like symbol to align like the integral?How to selectively substitute a letter with another symbol representing the same letterHow do I generate a less than symbol and vertical bar that are the same height?

                      Българска екзархия Съдържание История | Български екзарси | Вижте също | Външни препратки | Литература | Бележки | НавигацияУстав за управлението на българската екзархия. Цариград, 1870Слово на Ловешкия митрополит Иларион при откриването на Българския народен събор в Цариград на 23. II. 1870 г.Българската правда и гръцката кривда. От С. М. (= Софийски Мелетий). Цариград, 1872Предстоятели на Българската екзархияПодмененият ВеликденИнформационна агенция „Фокус“Димитър Ризов. Българите в техните исторически, етнографически и политически граници (Атлас съдържащ 40 карти). Berlin, Königliche Hoflithographie, Hof-Buch- und -Steindruckerei Wilhelm Greve, 1917Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars

                      Category:Tremithousa Media in category "Tremithousa"Navigation menuUpload media34° 49′ 02.7″ N, 32° 26′ 37.32″ EOpenStreetMapGoogle EarthProximityramaReasonatorScholiaStatisticsWikiShootMe