<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why We Don&#8217;t Divide By Zero in Arithmetic</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mathmojo.com/chronicles/2008/09/30/why-we-dont-divide-by-zero-in-arithmetic/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mathmojo.com/chronicles/2008/09/30/why-we-dont-divide-by-zero-in-arithmetic/</link>
	<description>The Official Blog of MathMojo.com - helping public school, homeschooling, unschooling students, parents, teachers and adults learn math with easy and effective methods.</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:31:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://mathmojo.com/chronicles/2008/09/30/why-we-dont-divide-by-zero-in-arithmetic/comment-page-1/#comment-99696</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:03:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mathmojo.com/chronicles/?p=311#comment-99696</guid>
		<description>Divider, 
I read your article, and I feel your pain, but your argument is very incomplete. I'll admit that math is not "perfect" in some intuitive, emotional way. There is some natural discomfort for humans when they find that their cherished beliefs do not live up to their expectations. 

But it is not the promise of math to live up to those kinds of expectations.  I also, as you, do not know as much about math as I'd like to, but a certain "willing suspension of disbelief" (up until a certain point) will give you the insight to accept math &lt;i&gt;for what it is worth&lt;/i&gt;, and then work to get the wrinkles out. Math is constantly developing, and simply saying you "don't like how it's done," is meaningless. Until you make a contribution, you need to work with what you've got. 

Don't fall into the trap of being a kind of denying science because it's "not perfect." It isn't supposed to &lt;i&gt;be&lt;/i&gt;perfect, it's supposed to investigate, describe, and correct itself. These things take time. There are lots of people who are working on things you can't even imagine. We can't invalidate their system because it offends our proprieties. 

The point of math is that it requires no "belief." You just need to suspend your disbelief as you learn something new. If it doesn't work, prove it (not because you "believe" it is this way or that - you must put your proof up to the same standards that you demand of others). Once you learn and understand something, it requires no further suspension of disbelief. 

I hope this helped.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Divider,<br />
I read your article, and I feel your pain, but your argument is very incomplete. I&#8217;ll admit that math is not &#8220;perfect&#8221; in some intuitive, emotional way. There is some natural discomfort for humans when they find that their cherished beliefs do not live up to their expectations. </p>
<p>But it is not the promise of math to live up to those kinds of expectations.  I also, as you, do not know as much about math as I&#8217;d like to, but a certain &#8220;willing suspension of disbelief&#8221; (up until a certain point) will give you the insight to accept math <i>for what it is worth</i>, and then work to get the wrinkles out. Math is constantly developing, and simply saying you &#8220;don&#8217;t like how it&#8217;s done,&#8221; is meaningless. Until you make a contribution, you need to work with what you&#8217;ve got. </p>
<p>Don&#8217;t fall into the trap of being a kind of denying science because it&#8217;s &#8220;not perfect.&#8221; It isn&#8217;t supposed to <i>be</i>perfect, it&#8217;s supposed to investigate, describe, and correct itself. These things take time. There are lots of people who are working on things you can&#8217;t even imagine. We can&#8217;t invalidate their system because it offends our proprieties. </p>
<p>The point of math is that it requires no &#8220;belief.&#8221; You just need to suspend your disbelief as you learn something new. If it doesn&#8217;t work, prove it (not because you &#8220;believe&#8221; it is this way or that - you must put your proof up to the same standards that you demand of others). Once you learn and understand something, it requires no further suspension of disbelief. </p>
<p>I hope this helped.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Divider by zero</title>
		<link>http://mathmojo.com/chronicles/2008/09/30/why-we-dont-divide-by-zero-in-arithmetic/comment-page-1/#comment-99665</link>
		<dc:creator>Divider by zero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 07:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mathmojo.com/chronicles/?p=311#comment-99665</guid>
		<description>We can't divide by zero, and if you look at what division by zero would imply, you can understand why. The only sort of rational answer would be infinity, but infinity can't be a number. Anyways, division by zero is impossible, but the result undefined is very dangerous. Since zero and the divide are both legal in our mathematical system, the result of applying them together should also be defined in the same system. Disaster! (Check the link for a better explanaiton)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We can&#8217;t divide by zero, and if you look at what division by zero would imply, you can understand why. The only sort of rational answer would be infinity, but infinity can&#8217;t be a number. Anyways, division by zero is impossible, but the result undefined is very dangerous. Since zero and the divide are both legal in our mathematical system, the result of applying them together should also be defined in the same system. Disaster! (Check the link for a better explanaiton)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
