Is the proposition 0 is 2 times 0 true? Please also explain why.

The landlord's question is good, in fact, the focus of the discussion is, 0 is 2 times 0" is not a true proposition?

I think so. Because 0=0*2

Pick B. The proof is as follows:

1) Necessity:

The slope of the straight line l is -2" => Let the intercepts of l on the y-axis and x-axis b and a respectively, if the straight line l is not the origin, then the slope k=(b-0) (0-a)=-2 => b a=2 => "the intercept of the line l on the y-axis is twice that of the x-axis".

If the straight line l crosses the origin, then b = a = 0, so b = 2 * a holds = > "the intercept of the line l on the y axis is twice as much as on the x axis".

In summary: the slope of the line L is -2" = > "The intercept of the line L on the y-axis is 2 times that of the x-axis".

2) Sufficiency:

The condition that "the intercept of the line L on the y-axis is twice that of the x-axis" is met when the line L crosses the origin, regardless of the slope, cannot be concluded that the slope of the line L is -2, so the sufficiency is not valid.

Also: against the 3rd floor "p is q can be transformed into "non-q is not p on behalf of the judgment of the conclusion).

This is not how the inverse proposition is described. It should be: "if p then q" can be changed to "if not q then not p".

First of all, we should recognize this: "p is q can be transformed into "non-q is non-p represents the conclusion of the judgment).

So for the proposition "0 is 2 times 0" is equivalent to "non-0 is twice as much as non-0", for the latter it is obviously false, so the former is also false.

The intercept is determined by plus or minus signs, e.g. y x 1, and its y intercept is 1).

As can be seen from the condition p, the y intercept and the x intercept are the same sign, and there are two cases here (positive or negative); It is easy to calculate that in both cases, the slope of the line is 2. So it is possible to launch the condition q.

In the case of condition q, in addition to the previous case (where the intercept is non-zero), there is another case: the line passes through the origin. Condition P cannot be introduced.

So, you should choose A

d.If p is true, i.e., the intercept of the line l on the y-axis is 2 times that of the x-axis, the slope of l may be 2, so q is not necessarily true: then p is an insufficient condition for q.

If q is true, i.e., the slope of the straight line l is -2, l may pass through the origin, and the intercepts on the y-axis and x-axis are both 0, so p is not necessarily true, then q is an unnecessary condition for q.

In summary, p is neither sufficient nor necessary for q, and d is chosen.

Q cannot be pushed, the intercept on the y-axis is 2 times that of the x-axis, and the slope of the straight line will be 2 and -2;

2.The slope of the straight line l is -2, and there is a possibility that the straight line will pass through the origin, so it comes down to what the landlord said, "Is it true that 0 is 2 times of 0?" ”

This requires the definition of multiples: if integer A is divisible by integer B, we say that integer A is a multiple of integer B. If we can say that "0 is 2 times 0", then we get the false proposition that 0 can be used as a divisor.

That is, "0 is 2 times 0" is not true, that is, q cannot push out p

Therefore, p is neither sufficient nor necessary for q.

0 is 2 times that of 0 , ie.

My understanding is: 0 = 0 2, which is obviously true, and then it becomes the language of life,"="Said it"Yes","×2"Say yes"2 times", and it became"0 is 2 times 0", so that's right.

Personally, I think that b=a=0 => b=2*a can push out 0 is 2 times 0.

No. Because 0 divided by any integer that is not 0 is zero (0 is an integer), that is, 0 can be divisible by any integer that is not 0.

Just like 6 is divisible by 2, so 6 is a multiple of 2. But because it can't be divided by 0, it's not a multiple of 0.

Definition of multiples and divisors: When a is divisible by the number b, a is called a multiple of b, and b is called the divisor of a. a is a multiple of b, and b must be the divisor of a; b is the divisor of a, and a must be a multiple of b.

However, when we are relatively shallow, such as elementary school, for convenience, when studying divisors and multiples, the number we speak of generally refers to natural numbers that are not zero.

Hope it helps

Classmate, your question is okay. Let me translate the equivalence condition of "0 is twice as much as 0". "0 is 2 times as much as 0" is equivalent to.

2 times 0 is 0" is equivalent to "0 2=0 ". So the original conclusion was correct.

However, if you want to translate multiplication into division, you can't do it here, and many people answer no, because they don't understand the "basic nature of the equation" of the deformation, and if you want to turn multiplication into division, you must make sure that the divisor is not 0, otherwise it is meaningless.

For example, someone divides the 0 on the left side of "0 2=0" and asks "2≠0 0". why?Then I want to ask rhetorically, why do I want to get rid of 0, Lao Tzu believes in your evil!

I'll just divide by 2 and have "0=0 2" Can't you? It's kind of biting me. Again:

If you want to turn multiplication into division, you must make sure that the divisor is not 0, otherwise it is meaningless. Multiplication and division are not mixed.

Besides, "0 is 2 times 0" and "2≠0 0" have a yarn relationship, have you learned the equivalent proposition?

This is the answer to the encyclopedia, I hope it can help you Hopefully!

Multiple. When a b = c (a, b, c are integers), define a and b as factors of c, and c as multiples of a and b.

a 0=0 (a is any real number) a is a factor of 0 and 0 is a multiple of a.

and because 0 must be the least non-negative number, it must be the least common multiple; another a 0 , so a is the greatest common factor.

Yes, because multiplying 0 by any number results in 0, the resulting 0 is any multiple of 0.

I haven't encountered this problem, and it should be said that it's okay.

Because 0+0=0 and 0 2=0, 0 is twice as much as 0.

Or say that 0 is an arbitrary multiple of 0.

No, because zero can't be a divisor.

"The last digit is a multiple of 0 must be a multiple of 5" This is a true proposition, because the end of a multiple of 5 is either 0 or 5, so this is a true proposition, but his inverse proposition is a false proposition, 26 is both a multiple of 2 and a multiple of 3" This is a false proposition, thinking that 26 divided by 3 is inexhaustible, so it is a false proposition.

The first is a true proposition.

Because the number divisible by 5 has no last digit of 5 or 0

The second is a false proposition.

26 is a multiple of 2, not a multiple of 3, and the number in each digit of a multiple of 3 is divisible by 3.

Solution: Propositions 3 2 are true propositions.

It means greater than or equal to.

3 2 So: 3 2 is true.

So: propositions 3 and 2 are true propositions.

It means greater than or equal to.

Or" means that only one of them is satisfied.

So 2 2 is a true proposition.

True proposition, 2 2 means: 2 2 or 2=2, it is enough to meet one condition, it is a true proposition.

This is a false proposition, a counterexample: when a = 1, b = -2, a b is satisfied, but a2 = 1, b2 = 4, a2 b2 , the modified question is set to: if a b 0, then the proposition is a true proposition

(1) The flat angle is 180°. Negative example: 30° acute angle + 100° obtuse angle = 130°, not flat angle.

2) If the median line on one side of a triangle is equal to half the length of this side, then the triangle is a right triangle.

This is not a proposition, because it is impossible to judge whether it is true or false. Changing it to this is the proposition:

a 2+1>0 (a is a real number).

It's a proposition, but it's not true, it's a false proposition.

A proposition usually refers to a declarative sentence that can determine whether it is true or false.

In this example, there are variables, and it is impossible to determine whether they are true or false without limiting the variables, and this kind of statement is generally called an open statement, which is not considered a proposition.