X/0 == Infinity

>x/0 == Infinity
Oh right i forgot, thank you Javascript!

Attached: pepe frog.jpg (1106x1012, 64K)

Infinity is part of the IEEE-754 spec, C-nile boomer

But that's true you amerilard

read a book you stupid nigger

You can't divide by 0 you stupid shits, it's "undefined"

>amerilards are unaware of the first week of calculus

Attached: Capture+_2018-08-21-11-14-30.png (422x218, 8K)

Nice bait I almost replied

When you take limits you replace the n with the infinity. Are you seriously thinking a programming language should be that pedantic about notation when all you want is the result? It's obvious what's happening in js when it says x/0 == infinity

Attached: baka.png (316x340, 218K)

It's not obvious at all, and it's completely wrong.
I would get it if an endless sum of numbers could be optimised away to return INFINITY but that's it.

>When you take limits you replace the n with infinity
You have no idea how to compute a limit, you retard. That is 100% untrue. A simple counter would be that the limit of 1/n as n -> -inf also equals 0. How could 2 "numbers" give you the same result? The reason is because infinities are not numbers, and limits are not a method of solving arithmetic.
x/0 equalling anything is logically useless in nearly any circumstance which is why it is traditionally undefined. In the rare cases where it needs to be defined it can be, but this should never be the case for a general-purpose programming language.

Are you the same fag who made the thread about 0.1 + 0.2?

>how could 2 "numbers" give you the same result

This may come to you as a shocker, but plenty of equations have more than one solution (and they can even have infinitely many solutions too). This case it's super simple since 0 = -0 so you can get the result easily

Physicist here. Yes.

JS is still shit though.

How can (-2)^2 and (2)^2 both equal 4 if there's two different numbers? Wtf I hate math now

Attached: d27_0.png (645x729, 75K)

>dividing by 0
>ever
Cannot the compiler just give you a bitchy error sign for trying to do something completely retarded

>It's not obvious at all, and it's completely wrong.
>it's not obvious at all

Please tell me you're just "pretending" to be retarded. How is extremely basic calculus not obvious at all? Is this site just filled with high school script kiddies that think copying and pasting from the arch wiki is programing

I was talking about that limit specifically, although you're both right that my point was weak, but I was pointing out that whoever that was was completely wrong about how limits work, and also implying that it makes sense for x/0 to equal infinity generally. It definitely does not make sense and saying that a limit is "replacing" a variable with an equation to prove it shows how ignorant that person is.

You do just replace the variable lol. That's how you evaluate it. How come you can only say it's wrong without explaining why?

math is fucking gay shit for virgin incels and school shooters

Attached: chad.png (800x458, 307K)

>limit evaluation is the same as function evaluation
take a fucking real analysis 101 course you dickmunching undergrad

What a dumb fuck

> What is IEEE-754

>Chad construction worker vs virgin physicist

yeah man that totally works for sin(x)/x

>you're wrong
It works anyway so why am I wrong
>um, because you're wrong

Are math autists actually socially inept or what? It works in practice so who cares about the abstract definition (which neither of you are able to use to explain why I'm supposedly wrong either way).

if it works then "just" replace x=0 in sin(x)/x and tell us the result
now tell us what lim x->0 sin(x)/x evaluates to
just tell us bro it's easy use wolfram alpha if you want just be yourself

Thanks for proving my point and dodging answering the question for the 4th time now

We're not talking about the limit, jackass

I am the original guy, and the reason you cant replace it becomes apparent in an example such as the one mentioned, lim sin(x)/x as x->0
So how the fuck are you going to say sin(0)/0 = 1? The sin(0) is 0, so you have 0/0. Maybe that equals 0, but it sure as hell doesn't equal 1.
Now take a look at the graph of the function. Seems pretty clear that the limit of the function as x approaches 0 from any direction is going to be 1. So how can I prove this if I can't substitute? Well we know that if a function is bound by two functions with equal limits that our original function's limit must be equal to the other two. So we can pick two functions that bind g=sin(x)/x: f=1 and h=cos(x). How to arrive at these functions is something you can Google. The limit as x->0 of 1 is 1, the limit as x->0 of cos(x) is 1 (because cosine is continuous, NOT by substitution), and since 1>=sinx/x>=cos(x), the limit as x->0 of sinx equals 1.
Side note: the much faster, not-as-intuitive method is to use L'hopital's rule
Hope that's good enough for you fag

Attached: Plots.gif (710x270, 10K)

no point on "proving a point" when you don't have the slightest idea of calculus, nigger.
if f(x) = sin(x)/x then f(0) = 0/0 = whatever your retarded ass claims a division by zero is
then using the definition of limits you find out that lim x->0 f(x) = 1
hold on a fucking minute, 1 =/= 0/0
turns out limits and direct evaluation are not the same thing because the fucking function isn't even continuous which is the only case when limit evaluation is the same as function evaluation
re-read that high school textbook of yours because you're conflating two different things and you can't even understand why they're different
by your retarded logic lim x->0 1/x = all the numbers because you get -infinity and +infinity from both sides so they must be like all the numbers amirite

Attached: boxoffhelp.gif (800x815, 63K)

X/ infinity is zero, so that's bretty valid you retarded asswipe