MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

All the articles I've read regarding "Division by Zero" the main argument for it being an undefined operation, because all proofs lead to contradictions.

iff (0 / x) = (x / 0) = (0 / 0) = (0)

Irrespective of a proof, if the above rules were observed what field axioms of the real numbers would be violated, and how?

In regards to the multiplicative inverse of zero:

(0 * x) = (0) == (0 * y) = (0)

(0 * x) = (0 * y)  // dividing both sides by 0 using the rules above results in

(0) = (0)

Quick Reasoning:
Graphing Division by Zero shows two limits, as the graph tends towards these limits their combined projected values at these two limits negate each other. ie: -infinity (as x tends towards 0 from below) and +infinity (as x tends towards 0 from above) either summate or negate each other to Zero.

share|cite|improve this question

closed as off topic by Anton Geraschenko Oct 10 '09 at 15:48

Questions on MathOverflow are expected to relate to research level mathematics within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Math Overflow is not the right place for your question. There are other sites more appropriate for such questions, like Ask Dr. Math ( In fact, that site has a whole discussion on this topic: – Anton Geraschenko Oct 10 '09 at 15:54
@Anton: Cutting and Pasting the Stackoverflow FAQ, making slight amendments for "Programmers" to "Mathematicians" and their associated nomenclature, is a surefire way of stating an intention which differs greatly to your actual intent for this site. I recommend you rectify this! "As long as your question is of interest to at least one other mathematician somewhere, (110 views suggests it is,) it is welcome here. Please make your question detailed and specific, and write clearly and simply. (My question is.)" PS: I've read what you've suggest, and it really DOES NOT answer the Q I have posed. – Anonymous User Oct 11 '09 at 9:38
@Anton: Oh another quote from your supposed FAQ. "We don't run Math Overflow. The community does." LMAO... On a serious note unless you allow a wide variety of Questions, you might as well only allow membership to an Elite Alumni who can pass on memberships to other of their ilk, because as it stands you, the moderators, are hypocrites and elitists. – Anonymous User Oct 12 '09 at 4:11
@Anonymous: I'm sorry that the FAQ did not properly communicate the intention of this site, and I'm sorry if you feel you've wasted your time. I really do believe in letting the community run the site, but for the time being, there are no 3000+ rep users to vote to close inappropriate questions, so we moderators have to be somewhat dictatorial. The FAQ is a guideline, but there's no magic formula for what the community members find appropriate. As a Math Overflow community member, I have a right to try to keep this site the kind of site that I want to keep visiting. – Anton Geraschenko Oct 14 '09 at 5:40
I have what I believe to be a better approach to division by zero. For numbers a, b: a/0 = b ⟺ a = 0. This follows simply from the equivalence of multiplication and division relations, and is not or should not be "research level mathematics". I was surprised to find that some people who have studied mathematics do not agree with me. What do you think, could I ask a question here on this topic without it being down voted or closed? – Sam Watkins Dec 17 '15 at 13:19
up vote 4 down vote accepted

There's a thing called a meadow which is a (successful) attempt to make multiplicative inverses globally defined. What it does is instead of defining multiplicative inverses, it defines an operation M → M, x → x-1 with the property not that xx-1 = 1 but that xx-1x = x. For any non-zero element then this agrees with the usual inverse but one can extend the inverse operation by defining 0-1 = 0 and it works. I may be wrong, but I think that the result is that every field embeds in a meadow.

So providing you don't claim that xx-1 = 1 but rather xx-1x = x then you are absolutely fine with 0-1 = 0.

share|cite|improve this answer
I like this. It seems completely analogous to pseudoinverses in linear algebra; in fact, I think it's just the special case in which you (1) consider a one-dimensional vector space over some field, (2) then consider that field as the ring of linear transformations on that vector space. – Darsh Ranjan Nov 5 '09 at 16:23
Given that this question has a useful answer, perhaps it should be re-opened, and edited if necessary to conform with the site's policies. – Sam Watkins Dec 17 '15 at 13:23

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.