You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Under the topic of linear graphs, we are taught that if two straight lines are perpendicular to each other, then their product of gradients is equal to -1.
Since a line with gradient 0 (horizontal line)is perpendicular to a line with gradient ∞ (vertical line), isn't 0x∞=-1 ??
Offline
Proof of following "theorem" using vectors method.
Let the first line be a vector (x,y) (vertical matrix)
Let the 2nd line be a perpendicular vector (p,q)
cos 90=0=(x,y).(p,q)=xp+yq (dot product)
yq=-xp
Therefore, gradient1xgradient2=(y/x)(q/p)=yq/xp=-xp/xp=-1
Last edited by wcy (2005-08-15 22:57:00)
Offline
That is dependant on the fact that n/0=∞, which I don't like. I prefer the idea that as 6x0=0, then 0/0=6, with 6 being replaced with any number. As 0/0 can take any value, then it is undefined.
Then again, that would mean that 0xn=-1, which means that -1/n=0, but n can take any value and if we give it the value of 1 then -1/1=-1, so we have a contradiction. I think the moral is that anything involving 0 is too strange to try to deal with.
Why did the vector cross the road?
It wanted to be normal.
Offline
Too complex for the human brain to comprehend.....
wcy showed us 0 x ∞ = -1
and there seems to be no loophole in the proof.
I was almost convinced that 0 x ∞ = 0 x 1/0 = 1, now I'd have to tell my mind it is ±1.
When we take the value -1,
0 x ∞ = -1
Taking square root on both sides,
√ (0 x ∞) = √-1
0 x √ ∞ = i
Therefore, √ ∞ = -i/0 !
wcy, your theory appears to be right!
It appears to me that if one wants to make progress in mathematics, one should study the masters and not the pupils. - Niels Henrik Abel.
Nothing is better than reading and gaining more and more knowledge - Stephen William Hawking.
Offline
since i²=-1,
then 0x∞=i²
hmm...
Offline
I was almost convinced that 0 x ∞ = 0 x 1/0 = 1, now I'd have to tell my mind it is ±1.
With "∞ = 1/0" reasoning, we could argue that 2/0 is also ∞, and so on. From this, 0 x ∞ could be any number. Letting n/0 = ∞ is just illegal to me. True, n/m gets increasingly closer to ∞ as m gets closer to 0(from the right), but when m actually is 0, we don't have any sensible number to assign to it. Assigning ∞ to n/0 doesn't make any sense unless n = 0, making it so 0 x ∞ = 0, but then we run into the classic indeterminate form 0/0, which can be any number. As mathsyperson said, dealing with 0 like this brings us into an area of mathematics which we cannot explain.
Offline
But the slope of vertical line can also be negative infinity too!
And the slope of a horizontal line could be negative zero!!
Last edited by John E. Franklin (2005-09-05 11:56:36)
igloo myrtilles fourmis
Offline
General comments:
∞ is not a slope. The gradient of a vertical line is not ∞, since one could argue that it is also -∞, which is completely different.
0 x ∞ = -1
2 x 0 x ∞ = -1 x 2
0 x ∞ = -2
-1 = -2
You're right, this is way to complicated for the human mind to comprehend... meep
I'm going to stick to my safe and solid viewpoint that infinity is not a number until someone enlightens me.
Last edited by God (2005-10-30 13:18:02)
Offline
Well, if God says it isn't a number, who are we to argue?
"The physicists defer only to mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God ..." - Leon M. Lederman
Offline
Pages: 1