Why the denominator is zero is meaningless

Any number x is assumed to be meaningful: x 0=y

Then x=y*0=0

Therefore, any number x=0 which is contradictory and does not make sense.

It doesn't make sense to have a denominator of zero.

Because any number multiplied by 0 is equal to 0, and dividing 0 means how many zeros add up to equal it, which can never be divided, so it is meaningless.

First of all, let's talk about what is an equation, the equation has symmetry, according to your logic, because 1=0 0, 2=0 0, we get 1=0 0=2 1=2 isn't it ridiculous? Also, in arithmetic, the relationship between numbers is described, and r is a set, and it is impossible to form an equal relationship with the arithmetic formula 1+1=2 but not equal to,

That's it, just remember it, don't be so serious, like 1+1=2, ask you why, you know.

You can try it, the numerator is a non-0 constant, and the denominator is getting closer and closer to 0, and you can find that the absolute value of the fraction is getting larger and larger until infinity.

Life produces mathematics, what do you mean? If it doesn't make sense, it makes no sense.

That's the definition can't ask why.

Divide 1 loaf into 2 portions, each serving is 1 2

Divided into 3 parts, it is 1 3

Divided into 0 parts, how to divide it, naturally there is no point.

But if a number is subtracted from 0, the answer is actually (infinite).

In fractions, the fraction line is equivalent to dividing this number.

The fraction is equivalent to the numerator divided by the denominator.

, the numerator is equivalent to the dividend.

The denominator is equivalent to the divisor, and according to the division definition, the divisor is zero, cannot be divided, and has no meaning.

For example, the score 1 3 means: Touching the tent divides an object into three parts, and only one of them is taken. But if the denominator is zero, it means that it is meaningless to divide an object into zero parts and take only one part of it, because dividing it into zero parts is equivalent to no part.

Reasons why the denominator cannot be 0: With the introduction of 0, we define the addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division of numbers, stipulating that the value of a fraction of the fraction is uniquely determined. If 0 is used as the denominator, then it will contradict the algorithm of our number itself.

So the denominator in the fraction cannot be 0, and the divisor cannot be 0 when using division.

From the point of view of the development of numbers: the set of integers of positive dry matter to positive fractions to fractions, which is rational numbers, then real numbers, and then complex numbers. The number set is an expansion process, and we have to consider a compatibility problem every time we expand, that is, the newly introduced mathematical factors cannot contradict the original mathematical principles.

The unsolved fractional equation means that no matter what value is taken, the equality of both sides of the fractional equation cannot be satisfied, and there are two main situations in which the fractional equation is unsolved

1. After the original fractional equation is multiplied by the simplest common denominator on both sides of the equal sign at the same time to reduce it to an equation equation, the equation has no solution;

2. After the fractional equation is converted into an equation equation, the integral equation has a solution, but this solution makes the denominator of the original fractional equation 0, and this solution is called the root addition of the fractional equation.

If the property of non-solution of fractional equations can be correctly applied in the actual problem solving, it will help to effectively improve the efficiency of problem solving, understand the problem more clearly, and solve other problems.

When solving fractional equations:

Removing the denominator so that the solution of the integer equation obtained after the loss is known may make the denominator in the original equation zero, so the solution of the integer equation should be substituted into the simplest common denominator, and if the value of the simplest common denominator is not zero, it is the solution of the equation.

If the simplest common denominator is equal to 0, the root is an incremental root. Otherwise, this root is the root of the hollow branch primitive equation. If the solved roots are all incremental roots, then there is no solution to the original equation.

Question 1: Why is the denominator of the fraction not 0 In the fraction, the fraction line is equivalent to the divisor sign, the fraction is equivalent to the quotient of the numerator divided by the denominator, the numerator is equivalent to the dividend, and the denominator is equivalent to the divisor. According to the proportional definition, the latter term is zero, cannot be proportional, and has no meaning; According to the meaning of fractions and fractions, the denominator is zero, and it cannot be divided into fractions and fractions, and there is no meaning Then according to the meaning of fractions, the value of the denominator of fractions cannot be zero, so the denominator of fractions cannot be zero.

Question 2: Why the denominator can't be zero can be explained by high numbers, and who proposed this 0 can't be the denominator is just a requirement in elementary mathematics, the reason is that the category of elementary mathematics does not involve the concept of limit, and the concept of limit is introduced in higher mathematics, when the denominator gradually tends to 0 and the numerator returns unchanged, the whole fraction gradually tends to infinity, so in the category of higher mathematics, the denominator is 0, and the fraction is infinity when the numerator is not 0.

Question 3: Why can't the denominator of a fraction be 0 In the fraction, the fraction line is equivalent to the divisor, the fraction is equivalent to the quotient of the numerator divided by the denominator, the numerator is equivalent to the dividend, and the denominator is equivalent to the divisor. According to the proportional definition, the latter term is zero, cannot be proportional, and has no meaning; According to the meaning of fractions and fractions, the denominator is zero, and it cannot be divided into fractions and fractions, and there is no meaning Then according to the meaning of fractions, the value of the denominator of fractions cannot be zero, so the denominator of fractions cannot be zero.

Question 4: Why the denominator can't be zero can be explained by high numbers, and who proposed this 0 can't be the denominator is just a requirement in elementary mathematics, the reason is that the category of elementary mathematics does not involve the concept of limit, and the concept of limit is introduced in higher mathematics, when the denominator gradually tends to 0 and the numerator does not change, the whole fraction gradually tends to infinity, so in the category of advanced mathematics, the denominator is 0 and the numerator is not 0, and the fraction is infinite.

Question 1: Why is the denominator of the fraction not 0 In the fraction, the fraction line is equivalent to the divisor sign, the fraction is equivalent to the quotient of the numerator divided by the denominator, the numerator is equivalent to the dividend, and the denominator is equivalent to the divisor. According to the proportional definition, the latter term is zero, cannot be proportional, and has no meaning; According to the meaning of fractions and fractions, the denominator is zero, and it cannot be divided into fractions and fractions, and there is no meaning Then according to the meaning of fractions, the value of the denominator of fractions cannot be zero, so the denominator of fractions cannot be zero.

Question 2: Why the denominator can't be zero can be explained by high numbers, and who proposed this 0 can't be the denominator is just a requirement in elementary mathematics, the reason is that the category of elementary mathematics does not involve the concept of limit, and the concept of limit is introduced in higher mathematics, when the denominator gradually tends to 0 and the numerator returns unchanged, the whole fraction gradually tends to infinity, so in the category of higher mathematics, the denominator is 0, and the fraction is infinity when the numerator is not 0.

Question 3: Why can't the denominator of a fraction be 0 In the fraction, the fraction line is equivalent to the divisor, the fraction is equivalent to the quotient of the numerator divided by the denominator, the numerator is equivalent to the dividend, and the denominator is equivalent to the divisor. According to the proportional definition, the latter term is zero, cannot be proportional, and has no meaning; According to the meaning of fractions and fractions, the denominator is zero, and it cannot be divided into fractions and fractions, and there is no meaning Then according to the meaning of fractions, the value of the denominator of fractions cannot be zero, so the denominator of fractions cannot be zero.

Question 4: Why the denominator can't be zero can be explained by high numbers, and who proposed this 0 can't be the denominator is just a requirement in elementary mathematics, the reason is that the category of elementary mathematics does not involve the concept of limit, and the concept of limit is introduced in higher mathematics, when the denominator gradually tends to 0 and the numerator does not change, the whole fraction gradually tends to infinity, so in the category of advanced mathematics, the denominator is 0 and the numerator is not 0, and the fraction is infinite.

The denominator should not be zero.

The number or algebraic formula written below the fraction line in a fraction is called the denominator. A fraction whose denominator is a known number is called an integer, and a fraction whose denominator is an unknown number is called a fraction.

The denominator can be everything except 0, i.e. the denominator is not equal to 0.

In any fraction, if the denominator is equal to 0, the fraction is meaningless.

Hope it helps.

No, it doesn't make sense, it's equivalent to x divided by 0 equals? , and extrapolating the past is 0 times by? Equal to x, so whatever?

Why is the number, x must be equal to 0, so it is proved that 0 cannot be used as an emmmm divisor or is the dividend (forgotten) that is, it cannot be placed at the back, and it cannot be used as the denominator. That's it.

In the fraction, the fraction line is equivalent to the divisor sign, the fraction is equivalent to the quotient of the numerator divided by the denominator, the numerator is equivalent to the dividend, and the denominator is equivalent to the divisor. According to the proportional definition, the latter term is zero, cannot be proportional, and has no meaning; According to the meaning of fractions and fractions, the denominator is zero, which cannot be divided into fractions and fractions, and has no meaning.

Then according to the meaning of the fraction, the value of the denominator of the fraction cannot be zero, so the denominator of the fraction cannot be zero.

Division is the inverse of multiplication, and if the division operation from multiplication operation is to be meaningful, then it must be meaningful to restore to multiplication operation, and any number multiplied by 0 is equal to 0, that is to say, if a 0 division is meaningful, it can only be 0 0 meaningful, but 0 0 does not have a unique number corresponding to it, so in order to avoid contradictions in the operation, the denominator can only be defined as not 0 (fraction is division).

Hello: 0 as the denominator means a 0=?

0=a and any number multiplied by 0 is 0, so the denominator cannot be 0 when the numerator is 0.

Of course, when the numerator is also 0, there is 0 0=?Like this"?"Can be any number, not sure.

So it doesn't make sense for 0 to be the denominator.

It's simple, you just need to know that when 0 is the denominator, the formula doesn't make sense!

Does the phrase "a substance is divided into 0 substances" make sense?

Any number that is not 0 divided by 0 will have no result.

The quotient of 2 0 0 is not necessarily.

For example, A says, "0 0=1". His reasoning was that 1 1 = 1 and 9 9 = 1 ......From this, the dividing quotient of two identical numbers is 1. Thus, 0 0 is no exception, but B says, "I think 0 0 = 2, because 0 2 = 0, according to the meaning of division we can get 0 0 = 2." He seems to have a point.

Therefore, what is 0 0 equal to; It doesn't have a set answer.

Therefore, the quotient of 0 0 is not necessarily. 0 cannot be used as a divisor.