this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
1236 points (98.4% liked)

Greentext

6653 readers
1777 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] remi_pan@sh.itjust.works 39 points 1 day ago (2 children)

"Impossible" would be a more mathematically accurate answer than "zero".

[–] prototact@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's not a matter of accuracy even, if for any two natural numbers x < y it holds x - y = 0 then x = y, which is a contradiction. So this is basic consistency requirement, basically sabotaging any effort to teach kids math.

[–] WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Depends on how your mathematical system is defined. In the mathematics system this teacher is using, negative numbers simply do not exist. The answer to 5-6 is the same as 5/0: NaN. Is this mathematical system incomplete? Yes. But, as has been thoroughly proven, there is no such thing as a complete mathematical system.

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The answer would still not be 0 as 0 is clearly still well defined within that system. NaN, undefined, etc. would be acceptable answers though. Otherwise you define:

for x > y, y - x = 0

Which defines that x = y

Resulting in the conditional x > y no longer being true

Also x/0 isn't NaN. It's just poorly defined and so in computing will often return "NaN" because what the answer is depends on the numbering system used and accidentally switching/conflating numbering systems is a very easy way to create a mathmatical fallacy like the one above.

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works -1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Also x/0 isn't NaN

you clearly haven't read IEEE 754

[–] SinAdjetivos@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

Have you?!?! IEEE 754 defines NaN, but also both a positive and negative zero (+0, -0) in addition to infinities such that x/+0 = ∞, x/-0 = -∞ and the single edge case ±0/±0 = NaN

I was under the impression that there is in fact such a thing as a complete mathematical system (if you take "mathematical system" in the broader sense of "internally consistent system"), but such a system would be pretty limited and therefore rather useless.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Yea, or “the first twenty are free but the remaining five you don’t have to give are a problem”.