It would be this guy:
I’d punch you.
[quote]grew7 wrote:
It would be this guy:
That is probably the least interesting thing I have ever glanced at.
This guy hasn’t even solved a problem. What he has done is assigned a symbol to the solution of a problem that can’t be solved.
This can be a very useful thing, as you may recall that i is the solution to the square root of -1.
Unfortunately, he does nothing to show how ‘nullity’ can be used to solve a practical problem.
That, and he acts like we need a solution to dividing by zero when the reality is that we have been getting along just fine without one.
Fuck, there are so many things wrong with this that I’m just going to stop there.
[quote]AgentOrange wrote:
This can be a very useful thing, as you may recall that i is the solution to the square root of -1.
[/quote]
the difference is that i is genuinely useful on occasion (e.g. electrical engineering). this “novel idea” is a waste of time.
“nullity” makes sense and all, but conventional logic tells anyone who makes it past high school math classes that this is the case. you just put DNE instead of phi.
hopefully i’ll be wrong and it will prove useful for solving math problems thought unsolvable, but it doesn’t seem to be any more useful than having a limit of an absolute value of sorts.
oh well, in any case he didn’t solve jack shit, he just assigned a symbol to an axiom.
[quote]StevenF wrote:
I’d punch you.[/quote]
And I would slap you.
Actually, a poster on that site explained this pretty well. If nullity=0/0, then nullity=(0+0)/(0+0)=(0/0)+(0/0)=2xnullity, which only works if nullity=0. So, in other words, complete bs.
Hey, let’s all create our own magic numbers and plug them into an equation whenever we can’t figure it out. That way we’re never wrong!
The things people do to get attention.
The worst part is, he is teaching it to kids who do not know any better, and will end up trying to use it later in life, and be laughed at.